PDA

View Full Version : Gameday Thread: Obama vs McCain


revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 12:27 PM
McCain said he's in..."Let's get it on!"

McCain should clean Obama's clock as long as they stay focused on Foreign Affairs...

Vis
09-26-2008, 12:29 PM
If he can remember the difference between Iran and Iraq

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 12:46 PM
You wants gaffes? Obama is a MACHINE:

-10,000 killed in the Kansas tornadoes
-57 states
-Sioux City.....Iowa?
-Iran can't do us harm?

cubanstogie
09-26-2008, 12:55 PM
You wants gaffes? Obama is a MACHINE:

-10,000 killed in the Kansas tornadoes
-57 states
-Sioux City.....Iowa?
-Iran can't do us harm?

Well there is 57 states, Islamic states that is. Freudian slip?

Hammer67
09-26-2008, 12:57 PM
*sigh*....public speakers ALL make blunders with facts from time to time. In fact, I had a speech class in college that focused on blunder recovery. It happens to all of them. I hated how Quail got pounded for this.

I am sure neither candidate meant any of these...

Vis
09-26-2008, 12:57 PM
It's over:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/26Sep_Friday_WSJ.JPG

Preacher
09-26-2008, 01:38 PM
It's over:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/26Sep_Friday_WSJ.JPG

Dang, talk about a peremptory strike.

This is the exact kind of thing I was talking about in the other thread... the rhetoric and maneuvering is just getting worse and worse.

fansince'76
09-26-2008, 02:12 PM
I almost moved this to the "Game Reporter" subforum. :rofl:

Preacher
09-26-2008, 02:23 PM
I almost moved this to the "Game Reporter" subforum. :rofl:

:chuckle:

Well, it seems as if it is game anymore, so maybe it will fit there.

HometownGal
09-26-2008, 02:26 PM
I almost moved this to the "Game Reporter" subforum. :rofl:

I almost moved it to the "Fun House". :chuckle:

I'm going to miss the first hour or so, but I'm recording it on my DVR.

What is always amusing about these debates is that after each of the 4 debates (including the VP debate next week), the DemoRATs will claim "victory" and the GOP'ers will do the same. The only debate or poll that really matters is that on election night. :thumbsup:

I remember with deep fondness CBS News and Dan "Splat My Face with Egg" Rather, as well as the straw polls early on election night 2004 proclaiming Kerry the winner. :rofl::laughing:

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
09-26-2008, 03:49 PM
This should be a decent debate.
I am waiting to see the Vice-presidential debate.........Im sorry Palin fans.......but shes gonna fall flat on her face.....

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 04:21 PM
This should be a decent debate.
I am waiting to see the Vice-presidential debate.........Im sorry Palin fans.......but shes gonna fall flat on her face.....theyve requested it be delayed until after Nov. 4. :wink: kinda like how theyve delayed her releasing her financial disclosures until after next thurs. unfortunately i will miss that trainwreck. i wil be in SA at the Coyote Ugly on the riverwalk. ....priorities :tt03:

it would seem obama's gonna get his clock cleaned but theres several angles he can take, and come out on top.

americans focus has shifted from the war to the economy. press mccain on "100 years in iraq". i dont care what he really meant when he said it or what context it was in. at this time of financial crisis, the last thing americans wanna think about is a 100 year war and who is gonna pay for it. when millions are losing their homes here, they dont wanna think about their tax dollars rebuilding homes for iraqis.

Press on n. korea. g-dub failed to remove them from the terrorism blacklist as promised and now theyre putting their reactors back together. dont offer any concessions, but follow through with a symbollic gesture and quit calling them bad names.

most definitely, 100% bring up sarah palin keeping us safe from the evil russians-:pity:

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state

:huh:...:confused:...:willy:

if played right, these 3 points could be a slam dunk for obama.

as for mccain, he needs to leave the issues alone and deflect to obamas lack of experience and military service. :rolleyes:

HometownGal
09-26-2008, 04:26 PM
I am waiting to see the Vice-presidential debate.........Im sorry Palin fans.......but shes gonna fall flat on her face.....

LMAO!!!!! :toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

With Biden's history of throwing temper tantrums at the slightest disagreement, I think Senator Biden is in for a very long (and embarassing) debate. Palin will chew him up and spit him out like yesterday's Alaskan king crab legs. :applaudit:

Would you like the egg you are going to be wearing on your face poached, scrambled or fried? :egg: Think of the positives, though - you'll become an instant member of the Dan Rather Yolk Face Society. :laughing::wink02:

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 05:35 PM
theyve requested it be delayed until after Nov. 4. :wink: kinda like how theyve delayed her releasing her financial disclosures until after next thurs. unfortunately i will miss that trainwreck. i wil be in SA at the Coyote Ugly on the riverwalk. ....priorities :tt03:

it would seem obama's gonna get his clock cleaned but theres several angles he can take, and come out on top.

americans focus has shifted from the war to the economy. press mccain on "100 years in iraq". i dont care what he really meant when he said it or what context it was in. at this time of financial crisis, the last thing americans wanna think about is a 100 year war and who is gonna pay for it. when millions are losing their homes here, they dont wanna think about their tax dollars rebuilding homes for iraqis.

Press on n. korea. g-dub failed to remove them from the terrorism blacklist as promised and now theyre putting their reactors back together. dont offer any concessions, but follow through with a symbollic gesture and quit calling them bad names.

most definitely, 100% bring up sarah palin keeping us safe from the evil russians-:pity:



:huh:...:confused:...:willy:

if played right, these 3 points could be a slam dunk for obama.

as for mccain, he needs to leave the issues alone and deflect to obamas lack of experience and military service. :rolleyes:

A) 100 years in Iraq can be explained away in 30 seconds. Obama would be a fool to try and exploit something so obviously taken out of context. McCain would swat him down like a fly.
B) What position is Diplobama gonna take on N. Korea that's tougher than McCain's? He can talk about UN sanctions I guess, but this is not an avenue the American public wants to be led down.
C) Obama would be 3 million different kinds of a fool to even utter the name Palin...he's already lost the high ground by the whole GOP Veep vs Dem Pres candidate thing. He needs to avoid that and try as hard as he can to get away from the kiddie table and sit with the big boys.

ohiosteelerfan20
09-26-2008, 06:21 PM
I hope that one of the questions tonight is, " define winning in Iraq". And just how long and how much money to get this win.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 06:22 PM
LMAO!!!!! :toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

With Biden's history of throwing temper tantrums at the slightest disagreement, I think Senator Biden is in for a very long (and embarassing) debate. Palin will chew him up and spit him out like yesterday's Alaskan king crab legs. :applaudit:
:

you got to be kidding. you say this based on what? all the debates youve seen her in? her dozens of interviews?

the few times she actually has come out of hiding freaking katie couric is eating her lunch. palin, makes emmit smith sound like a road scholor wordsmith. :talker:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml

Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

:confused: :rofl: :confused:

yeah, thats gonna go over real well in a live forum. :sofunny:

Preacher
09-26-2008, 06:25 PM
I hope that one of the questions tonight is, " define winning in Iraq". And just how long and how much money to get this win.

Simple question... Simple answer.

Winning = stable govt. which can stand against its neihbor to the east and an end to the proxy war Iran is fighting within Iraq now.

How long? Until it is finished.

How Much? Whatever it takes.

_______________________________________

Of course, those WONT be teh answers, because our politicians (and many of our countrymen) don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say "we are right, you are wrong" anymore. :pity:

And yes, we are right, and the UN was wrong... as was Iraq.

ohiosteelerfan20
09-26-2008, 06:31 PM
[QUOTE=HometownGal;442342]LMAO!!!!! :toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

think Senator Biden is in for a very long (and embarassing) debate. Palin will chew him up and spit him out like yesterday's Alaskan king crab legs. :applaudit:


And I guess Ben is only going to suffer 2 or 3 more sacks this year.:flap: That is some very very high hopes. Think you better hope she just doesnt look as bad as she did last night.

ohiosteelerfan20
09-26-2008, 06:38 PM
Simple question... Simple answer.

Winning = stable govt. which can stand against its neihbor to the east and an end to the proxy war Iran is fighting within Iraq now.

How long? Until it is finished.

How Much? Whatever it takes.

_______________________________________

Of course, those WONT be teh answers, because our politicians (and many of our countrymen) don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say "we are right, you are wrong" anymore. :pity:

And yes, we are right, and the UN was wrong... as was Iraq.

I hope soooo much that Mccain says that very thing.

steelwall
09-26-2008, 06:40 PM
Simple question... Simple answer.

Winning = stable govt. which can stand against its neihbor to the east and an end to the proxy war Iran is fighting within Iraq now.

How long? Until it is finished.

How Much? Whatever it takes.

_______________________________________

Of course, those WONT be teh answers, because our politicians (and many of our countrymen) don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say "we are right, you are wrong" anymore. :pity:

And yes, we are right, and the UN was wrong... as was Iraq.

Amen Preacher.:thumbsup:

cubanstogie
09-26-2008, 06:46 PM
you got to be kidding. you say this based on what? all the debates youve seen her in? her dozens of interviews?

the few times she actually has come out of hiding freaking katie couric is eating her lunch. palin, makes emmit smith sound like a road scholor wordsmith. :talker:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml



:confused: :rofl: :confused:

yeah, thats gonna go over real well in a live forum. :sofunny:

Is she supposed to study and memorize McCain's resume and accomplishments. Courics questions were a joke. Don't forget McCain is running for president not Palin. Bashing her only goes so far. I would like to see more of her, but normal questions about where she stands on issues, not what has John McCain done in his career. She can't hide to well in debates so time will tell. If she is to rehearsed it will be obvious. Why don't we ask Biden what Obama has done and see if he can answer.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 06:52 PM
A) 100 years in Iraq can be explained away in 30 seconds. Obama would be a fool to try and exploit something so obviously taken out of context. McCain would swat him down like a fly.
B) What position is Diplobama gonna take on N. Korea that's tougher than McCain's? He can talk about UN sanctions I guess, but this is not an avenue the American public wants to be led down.
C) Obama would be 3 million different kinds of a fool to even utter the name Palin...he's already lost the high ground by the whole GOP Veep vs Dem Pres candidate thing. He needs to avoid that and try as hard as he can to get away from the kiddie table and sit with the big boys.A)just cause you think you can easilly dismiss it in 30 seconds on a messageboard, do you think mccain will try to do the same to Joe Public? if they got questions and concerns over what was taken out of context, HE would be a fool to only devote 30 seconds to it.

lets see what your 30 second answer would be.

B) im not saying obama should take a tougher stance on n. korea. just point out that McSame being a complete dick to n. korea ala GW will get us nowhere. bill richardson went there on what wasnt even an official convoy, and talked since into them that bush had failed to do for years.

C)agreed that he needs to sit with the big boys (or good ol boys). but palin is a treasure trove of discrediting him on decisions he may make regarding foreign matters. its not like im suggesting obama suggest mccain will send palin as an ambassador to lift her skirt for the president of pakistan.

if mccain cant handle 2 things at once (such as the debates) his back-up is fair game.

its cool youve already handed out all points for the debate, and mccain could very well win it, in what has to be seen as an area of expertise.

point is, theres things obama can do, to score a few himself. one doesnt always have to be right in a debate, just be able to convey their stance in a better, more concise manner.

xfl2001fan
09-26-2008, 06:53 PM
Is she supposed to study and memorize McCain's resume and accomplishments. Courics questions were a joke. Don't forget McCain is running for president not Palin. Bashing her only goes so far. I would like to see more of her, but normal questions about where she stands on issues, not what has John McCain done in his career. She can't hide to well in debates so time will tell. If she is to rehearsed it will be obvious. Why don't we ask Biden what Obama has done and see if he can answer.

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for just a second here.

It's hard for her to call out Obama and his lack of experience when she knows nothing of the guy she is saddled up with politically. You'd think that she would at least know something.

While I doubt the expectation is that she know everything, she was caught with "her pants down" in that interview.

With all that being said, the interview does appear to have it's own slanted agenda. Also, I agree with you, in that the questions should much more be about where she stands with the issues.

Godfather
09-26-2008, 06:56 PM
I still can't believe this thing is in Oxford, MS. That's the worst venue for a presidential debate ever. Podunk little town that can't come close to handling the event...I still want an explanation for why they put it there but New Orleans "wasn't ready". NOLA only hosted three Sugar Bowls, three Mardi Gras, three Jazzfests, a BCS Championship Game, an NBA All-Star game, and dozens of national conventions since Katrina.

Instead we have journalists having to stay in private homes and Ole Miss spent $6M taxpayer dollars to upgrade their facilities so the debate could happen :banging:

xfl2001fan
09-26-2008, 06:58 PM
Why couldn't the debate have been moved to DC? It's not like it won't be on a nationally televised audience.

Then, both Senators could have rushed to DC to do the job that we as taxpayers are paying them to do...and still hold the debate with minimal changes.

I mean, it's not like they're lacking the facilities, camera crews, opinions necessary to hold this in DC.

steelwall
09-26-2008, 07:01 PM
Why couldn't the debate have been moved to DC? It's not like it won't be on a nationally televised audience.

Then, both Senators could have rushed to DC to do the job that we as taxpayers are paying them to do...and still hold the debate with minimal changes.

I mean, it's not like they're lacking the facilities, camera crews, opinions necessary to hold this in DC.

For once I totally agree with you.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 07:07 PM
I would like to see more of her, but normal questions about where she stands on issues, not what has John McCain done in his career. She can't hide to well in debates so time will tell. If she is to rehearsed it will be obvious. Why don't we ask Biden what Obama has done and see if he can answer.thats my point cs.

palin is asked where she stands on the issues, and she repeatedly says "i stand with john mccain". then shes asked about mccains specific stances on the issues she stands by, and she says "i dont know, ill get with you later" :doh: :banging:

if courics questions were a joke, then the ameican public is a joke. you and i are a joke. if the mccain camp is asking for votes and contributions, they owe it to us to let us know what the hell we are voting for (not keeping her under wraps).

ive never seen such a high profile candidate so shielded and pampered and it scares the shit out of me. and i would say the EXACT same if she were a democratic candidate.

does anyone think condi rice would be in hiding if she were tabbed as mccains veep? hell no. (now thats a ticket that coulda been much harder to vote against).

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 07:15 PM
Then, both Senators could have rushed to DC to do the job that we as taxpayers are paying them to do...and still hold the debate with minimal changes.

.whats their salaries? $175,000?

now compare that with about the half a billion dollars obamas campaign has raised for him to run for president.

money talks. its pretty evident they have a much more important job to think about right now and that is to secure the white house for their party.

i dont understand why so many people are having such a tough time wrapping their minds around this simple concept.

job as presidential candidate > job as senator

it is what it is and always has been.

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 07:17 PM
Bank this...Obama won't touch any of your hot-button issues with a ten foot poll, Tony.

He's trying to WIN this election...

Oh...edit...I could probably do it in ten seconds:

"Senator Obama knows as well or better than I do that I never suggested that we would be fighting this war in Iraq for 100 years. But I hope, from the bottom of my heart, that America DOES have a presence in Iraq from here on out. A safe and free Iraq allied with the US and all the other Democracies of the World."

Or something like that...

xfl2001fan
09-26-2008, 07:41 PM
whats their salaries? $175,000?

now compare that with about the half a billion dollars obamas campaign has raised for him to run for president.

money talks. its pretty evident they have a much more important job to think about right now and that is to secure the white house for their party.

i dont understand why so many people are having such a tough time wrapping their minds around this simple concept.

job as presidential candidate > job as senator

it is what it is and always has been.

And if he loses his president bid, he get's to keep his job as a Senator?

Name 5 jobs (outside of politics) in this country, where you can actively (on the Company's dime) search for a new job, often times ignoring your present day duties, and if you don't get the new job, go back to your old job as if nothing happened.

He wasn't elected to the Senate to run for the President. (Pick your He, I don't care.) Job as Senator supersedes everything else, because it is his appointed task by the voters of his state.

Illinois/Arizona didn't appoint him as presidential candidate. He should lose his job, because he's clearly not focused on it. He's focused on getting your vote for a different job.

Of course, in the case of Illinois, voting present 128 times instead of taking a real stance should be cause enough to fire the community organizer.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 07:46 PM
Oh...edit...I could probably do it in ten seconds:

"Senator Obama knows as well or better than I do that I never suggested that we would be fighting this war in Iraq for 100 years. But I hope, from the bottom of my heart, that America DOES have a presence in Iraq from here on out. A safe and free Iraq allied with the US and all the other Democracies of the World."

Or something like that...

:thumbsup: i was assuming my query would be ignored and dismissed.

good response. my follow up would be....

but who will pay for this presence? how many soldiers will die? when will it end? will the risks outweigh the rewards? establishing bases in saudi arabi just provoked 9-11.

100 years? c'mon man. you cant dismiss that in 10 seconds and expect everyone to buy it. he may be cashing checks his ass cant cash. he cant even assume he will see the first 8 years in a full 2 terms.

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 07:52 PM
:thumbsup: i was assuming my query would be ignored and dismissed.

good response. my follow up would be....

but who will pay for this presence? how many soldiers will die? when will it end? will the risks outweigh the rewards? establishing bases in saudi arabi just provoked 9-11.

100 years? c'mon man. you cant dismiss that in 10 seconds and expect everyone to buy it. he may be cashing checks his ass cant cash. he cant even assume he will see the first 8 years in a full 2 terms.

I wasn't talking about anything more than the type of regional stabilizing force we've had in Germany, and Japan and Korea for decades...etc, etc...

Trust me, this won't come up tonight.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 07:57 PM
Illinois/Arizona didn't appoint him as presidential candidate. He should lose his job, because he's clearly not focused on it. He's focused on getting your vote for a different job.
.if thats how it should be, whay hasnt it been voted on and made into law?

youre barking up the wrong tree.

if it means that much to you, go out in your own town, start a petition, get up an initiative, contact your own states representatives, and get this ball rolling!

in the meantime "rock the vote!"

it is what it is, no matter what YOU think it should be. :drink: i guess its just part of living in this great country that you have to either accept or go out and change.

the great part of being an american is that either option is open to ya!

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:01 PM
I recommend watching the debate on PBS...they are the closest thing to unbiased that's left (even though they hate Bush for trying to pull their funding), and Jim Lehrer is, IMO, as good as it gets.

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:03 PM
Uh oh...finance is already being "admitted into evidence".

Forget my "10 minutes thing"

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 08:03 PM
I wasn't talking about anything more than the type of regional stabilizing force we've had in Germany, and Japan and Korea for decades...etc, etc...

Trust me, this won't come up tonight.wow. thats exactly what mccain was talking about..... but then i already knew this. :noidea:

doesnt mean Joe Public does though.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 08:05 PM
lol. you were right revs.

it took less than 5 seconds for the debate to turn to the economy. :chuckle:

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:06 PM
Ooops...that's mistake number one by Obama. Equating Bush to McCain...no good.

Nice human touch McCain...

McCain is much smoother than even a few weeks ago...

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 08:10 PM
i dont like obamas answer to the 2nd question already. instead of discussing the "plan" he is discussing "blame".

but mccain bit

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:11 PM
McCain has not bitten on anything...Obama is saying "I", and McCain is stating "We".

fansince'76
09-26-2008, 08:13 PM
:popcorn:

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:15 PM
I thought McCain would lose on the economy????

He's kicking ass. Expect Obama to have a totally different approach in the next debate. He wanted to bait, and McCain is staying on his own agenda.

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:18 PM
17 minutes in, and not a word on Foreign policy...

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 08:19 PM
mccains tax cuts are the biggest "earmarks".

lol. now its gonna get nasty. 1 billion vs 300 bil.

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:21 PM
Shoots and scores with 35% vs 11%

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 08:21 PM
17 minutes in, and not a word on Foreign policy...
topic maybe tossed out the window altogether?

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:23 PM
topic maybe tossed out the window altogether?
Gotta get back on topic...we ARE fighting a war on two fronts and there's Iran and N Korea

RunWillieRun
09-26-2008, 08:28 PM
topic shmopic tonight apparently

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:29 PM
1/2 hour in, and we're still on the economy. Gotta get back on topic...or Obama gets a pass.

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:30 PM
Wait...signs of life. Cost + is defense, and defense is national security which COULD segue into foreign policy

Godfather
09-26-2008, 08:30 PM
17 minutes in, and not a word on Foreign policy...

In other words, Obama is dodging his weakest issue :banging:

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:33 PM
In other words, Obama is dodging his weakest issue :banging:

Yup...

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 08:33 PM
Wait...signs of life. Cost + is defense, and defense is national security which COULD segue into foreign policylol. im still holding my breath.

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:34 PM
This is ALL economy...

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:39 PM
Bingo! Foreign policy! 39 minutes in...

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 08:40 PM
LOL mccain needlessly brings up palin as a "good maverick".

:rofl:

(grasping for straws)

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:42 PM
Why would McCain calling himself a maverick be different than Obama pointing out that he was originally against the war?

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:43 PM
Swat! McCain just killed the whole diatribe...

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 08:48 PM
Why would McCain calling himself a maverick be different than Obama pointing out that he was originally against the war?

himself = palin??? :confused:

oh-kay

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:48 PM
(cough) Reach (cough)

Obama is now getting his proverbial lunch handed to him...he got a 39 minute pass. "It's clobberin' time!"

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:50 PM
Temper temper Obama!

See what happens when you believe blogs? Obama is the one getting flustered and impatient and losing his temper...

Interesting...Obama diverts from success in Iraq to failure in Afghanistan.

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:54 PM
McCain admits a mistake, too...pulls out the George Schultz card? Wow!

Oh boy...this is bad...McCain is schooling the young padawan learner.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 08:54 PM
mccain takes responsibility for turning their back on afghanistan after running out the russians and enabling the growth of the taliban.

:thumbsup: nice!

self ownage in the mix.

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:56 PM
mccain takes responsibility for turning their back on afghanistan after running out the russians and enabling the growth of the taliban.

:thumbsup: nice!

self ownage in the mix.

That is admirable, considering he was speaking as a Senator, not as the President at the time.

Obama is fighting a losing battle here.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 08:58 PM
MCCAINS living in the past. 1983?

fansince'76
09-26-2008, 08:58 PM
According to Obama, we're going to "win back the confidence of the Pakistani people" with cross-border strikes within their country? OK. :doh:

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 08:59 PM
Huh?

Reaching again...

McCain smokes Obama on these issues unless you believe that we should all hold hands and exchange flowers.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 09:01 PM
That is admirable, considering he was speaking as a Senator, not as the President at the time.

Obama is fighting a losing battle here.
eh.

my scorecard has obama 23. mccain 19.

:chuckle:

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 09:02 PM
"muddle through afghanistan"

*ZING*

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 09:02 PM
LOL! That's the funniest thing I've read since the dipshit who posted that PSU would automatically win against OSU in the Shoe this year.:applaudit:

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 09:03 PM
Even on time...1/2 way through...NOW we get the real stuff.

BAM! Russia/Iran...hit em hard, John...with the French? Yikes...how the World has turned...

Preacher
09-26-2008, 09:04 PM
I love this style of debate. It is one of the most honestly moderated debates I have seen. "Ehrer isn't lettingh either side get away with much

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 09:07 PM
He's always like this, and it's good...he directs the candidates to speak to each other..

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 09:08 PM
Diplobama

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 09:11 PM
Obama just told the World that we'll be happy to sit down with you as LONG AS YOU DO EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT.

Huge mistake...

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 09:15 PM
Obama finally scored a point!

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 09:16 PM
as predicted, obama mopped up on north korea.

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 09:20 PM
Mopped up? He scored a point.

And he's losing on Russia badly...McCain knows his stuff. This is definitely NOT GWBII for anyone who is watching.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 09:23 PM
LOL! That's the funniest thing I've read since the dipshit who posted that PSU would automatically win against OSU in the Shoe this year.:applaudit:
just wanted to get this on record. :wink02:

:chuckle:

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 09:24 PM
You should...It's worth keeping.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 09:28 PM
I love this style of debate. It is one of the most honestly moderated debates I have seen. "Ehrer isn't lettingh either side get away with much



He's always like this, and it's good...he directs the candidates to speak to each other..
__________________

:yep:

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 09:31 PM
Obama is jumping off the "Peace Train".

But he scores a HUGE point with restoring our image. Obama would do that better than McCain.

But that speaks more to the naivety and unrealistic expectations of other countries, and less about our true "evil intentions" as a country.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 09:32 PM
anyone watching cnn? theyve got a great "audience tracker" to guage the response.

not totally scientific, but rather telling....

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 09:35 PM
"there are some advantages to experience"

:chuckle:

mccain grasping at straws again.

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 09:35 PM
That's EXACTLY why I choose PBS. It's old school...CNN is the Paris Hilton of News Networks.

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 09:38 PM
I gave my props to Obama (as I always do) and he's an honorable guy. But he's just out of his league in this election.

But for the crowd that decides on soundbites, I hear CNN has a really cool "Applause-o-meter" that should make your determination for you...

SteelCityMan786
09-26-2008, 09:41 PM
That's EXACTLY why I choose PBS. It's old school...CNN is the Paris Hilton of News Networks.

That was MSNBC, unless you want to call them Nicole Ritchey. :sofunny:

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 09:44 PM
That's EXACTLY why I choose PBS. It's old school...CNN is the Paris Hilton of News Networks.psssst.

no matter who broadcasted it, the same audience members still had the same little buttons to press as they sat in their seats.

:hunch:

kudos for watching PBS though.

CNN happened to be closest to NFL network when i switched over. i pay no consideration to a network when i watch a live broadcast such as this...

(i will switch over to fox for the follow up analysis though)

revefsreleets
09-26-2008, 09:46 PM
PBS is giving props to Obama, but that's not really surprising, is it?

Bottom line? Obama was supposed to be (and I still don't know why) stronger on the economy, and he wasn't, and McCain killed on foreign policy.

But it was a pretty mundane debate. No one will ever quote anything said tonight 20 years from now.

I was impressed that both these guys came in loaded for bear with facts. These are two sharp guys, and they both know their stuff..

Mosca
09-26-2008, 09:56 PM
Our TV coverage went down, all we could get was CBS, but we saw it.

Neither one sucked as bad as any of us thought they would. A good debate. Honestly, I feel somewhat better about both candidates.

Rev, I call it pretty much a tie; I thought they were both good on both. Subtracting out the attack/defense, both made their points cogently, and what's left is which one you agreed with. McCain started slowly but got better when the questions came to his wheelhouse; Obama started strong and was somewhat vaguer toward the end.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 10:00 PM
I gave my props to Obama (as I always do) and he's an honorable guy. But he's just out of his league in this election.

But for the crowd that decides on soundbites, I hear CNN has a really cool "Applause-o-meter" that should make your determination for you...way to try and denigrate my post :thumbsup:

:yawn:

you know america has an "applause-o-meter" many use on november 4th. its called an election booth.

*zing*

i am pretty familiar with them. i have worked with both the "hanging chad" versions and the electronical ones for 5 elections. i have been personally responsible for tabulating and verifying thousands of votes and turning them in to my state.

kudo's for poo-poo'ing all the individuals who make up this nation. :thumbsup:

xfl2001fan
09-26-2008, 10:01 PM
if thats how it should be, whay hasnt it been voted on and made into law?:noidea: I just don't see why either of these guys can be paid quadruple my annual salary to apply for another job. Seems a bit odd that public servants are allowed that.

in the meantime "rock the vote!"I've served my country for 11 years. The right to vote is one I proudly stand for and vehemently "attack" people for not putting it to proper use. (Like idiots who are selling their votes on e-bay, or will vote/not vote for Obama based on race/religion).

it is what it is, no matter what YOU think it should be. :drink: i guess its just part of living in this great country that you have to either accept or go out and change.So very true, particularly the first part of this statement. I try very hard to live grounded in the focusing on what things are, now what I'd like them to be. Then I focus on the solution, not the problem.

the great part of being an american is that either option is open to ya!Amen! We may not see eye to eye in the political or sports arena, but in this, we are perfectly aligned!

The Patriot
09-26-2008, 10:11 PM
I gave my props to Obama (as I always do) and he's an honorable guy. But he's just out of his league in this election.


Obama has had more political experience now than Abraham Lincoln had when he ran for president. Just a fun fact. :noidea:

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 10:15 PM
:noidea: I just don't see why either of these guys can be paid quadruple my annual salary to apply for another job. Seems a bit odd that public servants are allowed that.


i hear you, but the only way i can answer is why can a pre-elected candidate receive secret service protection as well as a former president receiving the same protection once removed from office (and public service)?

:noidea: it is what it is. i guess our govt just figures former presidents deserve protection as much as our former soldiers deserve health care and benefits.

i can deal with that. it makes sense to me.

Preacher
09-26-2008, 10:31 PM
I was personally pretty impressed with both candidates. I do think McCains experience showed through a bit-- and that was the edge for him.

However, I think Obama lost the.election tonight. When he said he would move the troops into Afg. Instead of bringing them home he lost his far left core to a libertarian vote. I do, in the end, think that will be the difference

Texasteel
09-26-2008, 10:51 PM
After watching these debates I am ever more confident that McCain will win in November. The campaigns seem to be following a pattern that has not been good for the Democrats in the past, and I've been through a few more than 5 of these things.
But there is still a month to go.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 10:53 PM
However, I think Obama lost the.election tonight. When he said he would move the troops into Afg. Instead of bringing them home he lost his far left core to a libertarian vote. I do, in the end, think that will be the difference

congrats. this is the 4th post/thread to win the coveted award-

http://azbattlerifles.com/images/sky-is-falling.jpg

:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

this whole entire election hinges on far left / libertarian voters??? :sofunny:

are you really suggesting the "far left" will just hand over their votes (and the presidency) to mccain based on going after bin laden when he's in our sights?

:rofl:

Mosca
09-26-2008, 10:57 PM
I was personally pretty impressed with both candidates. I do think McCains experience showed through a bit-- and that was the edge for him.

However, I think Obama lost the.election tonight. When he said he would move the troops into Afg. Instead of bringing them home he lost his far left core to a libertarian vote. I do, in the end, think that will be the difference

You overestimate the size of the far left, and your assumption that they would vote for anyone else (giving the election to McCain) is erroneous. Hell, I WANT him to send more troops to Afghanistan.

Preacher
09-26-2008, 11:20 PM
congrats. this is the 4th post/thread to win the coveted award-

http://azbattlerifles.com/images/sky-is-falling.jpg

:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

this whole entire election hinges on far left / libertarian voters??? :sofunny:

are you really suggesting the "far left" will just hand over their votes (and the presidency) to mccain based on going after bin laden when he's in our sights?

:rofl:

Kinda sad non-sequiter there.


Let me straighten things out for your and mosca.

The far left probably are about 2-4 percent of the party... same as the far right. Last couple elections they have voted Nader... not caring that Bush got in because of thier votes. They are going to feel betrayed by Obama not pulling the troops out NOW, let alone not bringing the home.

That 2-4 percent will be the shift in the election in my opinion. It is the same thing that happened to Bush in 1992 and Dole in 1996-- both lost by less than the margin of the conservatives who moved to vote third party.

And here, Obama just debated as a dixie-crat, not as a far left liberal.

Preacher
09-26-2008, 11:24 PM
You overestimate the size of the far left, and your assumption that they would vote for anyone else (giving the election to McCain) is erroneous. Hell, I WANT him to send more troops to Afghanistan.

I doubt 2-4 percent is an overestimation... heck, it is probably an underestimation...

and you, Mosca, are anything but far left.

Heck, Obama moved quite a bit right tonight... probably right into your political house. I would surmise you and Tony both are a heck of a lot more comfortable with him now.

Matter of fact, I am more comfortable with him than I have been with any democrat since JFK.. and I wasn't even born then. And that is my point. Movement that far right will hurt him.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 11:31 PM
Kinda sad non-sequiter there.


Let me straighten things out for your and mosca.

.
:nono: you straighten nothing out.

you suggest the "far left" is gonna put McSame back into office for a third term.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

(im trying to lend you a "lifeline" here, and suggesting you dont really believe that.)

steelwall
09-26-2008, 11:32 PM
Was it just me or did Obama seem quite smug during this debate. Constantly laughing off Mcains responses and inturupting him? I honestly expected Obama to win this debate due to his "media appeal". I just didnt see that here. I seen a man who countered a fair debate with childish antics because thats all he had.

Sorry Toney, I know he's your guy, but that stupid smile by Obama every time Mcain spoke, became quite annoying.

MasterOfPuppets
09-26-2008, 11:40 PM
I doubt 2-4 percent is an overestimation... heck, it is probably an underestimation...

and you, Mosca, are anything but far left.

Heck, Obama moved quite a bit right tonight... probably right into your political house. I would surmise you and Tony both are a heck of a lot more comfortable with him now.

Matter of fact, I am more comfortable with him than I have been with any democrat since JFK.. and I wasn't even born then. And that is my point. Movement that far right will hurt him.

but perhaps for every person on the far left he lost, he gained a middle of the road person. (someone like myself...who doesn't consider themselves a dem or rep)

Preacher
09-26-2008, 11:42 PM
:nono: you straighten nothing out.

you suggest the "far left" is gonna put McSame back into office for a third term.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

(im trying to lend you a "lifeline" here, and suggesting you dont really believe that.)


If all the left has is "McSame..." this is going to be easier than we thought.

I guess ignorance of history is truly bliss... nobody wants to remember just how close the last 2 elections were... and how Nader pushed BOTH elections to the GOP.

Preacher
09-26-2008, 11:46 PM
but perhaps for every person on the far left he lost, he gained a middle of the road person. (someone like myself...who doesn't consider themselves a dem or rep)

Here's the thing... while that may be true, for some reason I think that there is not that many in the middle that are left. I think McCain and Obama BOTH have to worry more about their base at this point... and I think Obama put a little distance between him and his base, and quite a bit of distance between him and the far left.

The next debate, McCain will have to walk the same line. If he starts veering left at all... he will lose a lot of the base he picked up with the Palin pick.




One caveat i did NOT put in... ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL....... that is, both candidates do just as well from this point on and the veep debate not having any significant affect (which it never does) on the election.

tony hipchest
09-26-2008, 11:47 PM
If all the left has is "McSame..." this is going to be easier than we thought.

I guess ignorance of history is truly bliss... nobody wants to remember just how close the last 2 elections were... and how Nader pushed BOTH elections to the GOP.hehehe

"GONader push..."

pssst...

you might wanna check out the closeness of NM's 5 electoral votes in the past 2 presidential elections before you suggest "nobody" wants to remember how close the last 2 elections went.

thanks! :cheers:

:thumbsup:

Preacher
09-26-2008, 11:48 PM
hehehe

"GONader push..."

Matter of fact...

maybe I should look into given Nader a nice little political donation! :chuckle:

you might wanna check out the closeness of NM's 5 electoral votes in the past 2 presidential elections before you suggest "nobody" wants to remember how close the last 2 elections went.

thanks!

Hmmm... thanks for supporting my greater argument Tony!! Such close elections ARE turned on things such as what I am arguing when it is that close... I appreciate the help. :thumbsup:

Preacher
09-26-2008, 11:49 PM
hehehe

"GONader push..."

And after a re-read of your post............













........ Your a bad bad man! :rofl:

tony hipchest
09-27-2008, 12:46 AM
Bank this...Obama won't touch any of your hot-button issues with a ten foot poll, Tony.

...you sound as convincing as a predatory mortgage broker.... :chuckle:

shall we review?

catch phrases such as "cleaning clock" and geting proverbial "lunch handed to him " ring rather hollow.

B) What position is Diplobama gonna take on N. Korea that's tougher than McCain's? He can talk about UN sanctions I guess, but this is not an avenue the American public wants to be led down.
i think you already conceded this point.


Trust me, this won't come up tonight.it did. i wont even bother with going on...

anyways, the debate was much closer than the republiRATS wouldve liked or predicted.

too bad this debate was seen and hoped as one of obamas weaker points.

palin is up next. im sure she can make up the difference! :rofl:

GBMelBlount
09-27-2008, 06:53 AM
but perhaps for every person on the far left he lost, he gained a middle of the road person. (someone like myself...who doesn't consider themselves a dem or rep)

Good point.

He will still be considered left of Mccain and thereby be the lesser of the two evils in the eyes of the far left, and I believe that is all he needs to do. I believe that will trump most prejudices or concerns over him moving to the middle. The hatred of capitalism, big business, free markets and conservatives will likely be a deciding factor for this group when they ACTUALLY vote imo. And I believe the media will make sure of that.....

Mosca
09-27-2008, 09:12 AM
I doubt 2-4 percent is an overestimation... heck, it is probably an underestimation...

and you, Mosca, are anything but far left.

Heck, Obama moved quite a bit right tonight... probably right into your political house. I would surmise you and Tony both are a heck of a lot more comfortable with him now.

Matter of fact, I am more comfortable with him than I have been with any democrat since JFK.. and I wasn't even born then. And that is my point. Movement that far right will hurt him.

As I wrote in my previous post, I feel better about both candidates after last night. Anyone should, they both scored good points. I want Obama to be more conservative; I want McCain to be less conservative. I think we saw both last night.

I'd call this one a tie. Contrary to what I've read from some pundits who are trying to spin it (you just can't hide from them, after all), I don't think a tie favors Obama. I don't think it favors McCain, either. I think it is what it is; no decision. Every Obama supporter I've spoken with today has said that Obama crushed McCain; every McCain supporter says just the opposite. You know what that means... it was a tie.

I'm an old school Dem; in my best scenario, we have the strongest military in the world, and no need to use it. But no blinders, either; you use it when you need to. We ain't no pansies for nobody, never.

MACH1
09-27-2008, 11:39 AM
I'm an old school Dem; in my best scenario, we have the strongest military in the world, and no need to use it. But no blinders, either; you use it when you need to. We ain't no pansies for nobody, never.

Thats just it, I don't think Obama has the cahonas to stand up to some of these country's let alone us the military. He'd rather sit down and have a tea party with them.

steelwall
09-27-2008, 11:46 AM
Who do you think our enemies want to win....Obama or Mcain... I think the answer is obvious, so vote with our enemies if you want, I'm sure they will thank you for it with a nice terrorist attack.

revefsreleets
09-27-2008, 12:35 PM
way to try and denigrate my post :thumbsup:

:yawn:

you know america has an "applause-o-meter" many use on november 4th. its called an election booth.

*zing*

i am pretty familiar with them. i have worked with both the "hanging chad" versions and the electronical ones for 5 elections. i have been personally responsible for tabulating and verifying thousands of votes and turning them in to my state.

kudo's for poo-poo'ing all the individuals who make up this nation. :thumbsup:

Not denigrating your post, but I am absolutely and unequivocally denigrating the continued dumbing down of this country. This is "Entertainment Tonight" type garbage, completely unscientific, only relatable to the audience in Mississippi (hardly representative of the Country), not too mention it's a college campus, and certainly comprised of many young liberal college students (who are almost automatically Obama supporters). Gauging the applause in the audience is something I'd expect from American Idol, not a presidential debate.

Shame on CNN.

Preacher
09-27-2008, 01:13 PM
As I wrote in my previous post, I feel better about both candidates after last night. Anyone should, they both scored good points. I want Obama to be more conservative; I want McCain to be less conservative. I think we saw both last night.

I'd call this one a tie. Contrary to what I've read from some pundits who are trying to spin it (you just can't hide from them, after all), I don't think a tie favors Obama. I don't think it favors McCain, either. I think it is what it is; no decision. Every Obama supporter I've spoken with today has said that Obama crushed McCain; every McCain supporter says just the opposite. You know what that means... it was a tie.

I'm an old school Dem; in my best scenario, we have the strongest military in the world, and no need to use it. But no blinders, either; you use it when you need to. We ain't no pansies for nobody, never.

I have to admit... when this all began, I called them (and hillary) the three stooges.


yet, I too am more comfortable with both-- when it comes to their words.

I really wish more dixie crats which it seems you are... would run for president. While I probably wouldn't vote for him or her... I would be VERY comfortable with that person in office.

Mosca
09-27-2008, 01:14 PM
Who do you think our enemies want to win....Obama or Mcain... I think the answer is obvious, so vote with our enemies if you want, I'm sure they will thank you for it with a nice terrorist attack.

I think our enemies want McCain to win, because if he follows the strategy that is currently in place, we will obviously lose in the long run.

Leftoverhard
09-27-2008, 01:27 PM
vote with our enemies if you want, I'm sure they will thank you for it with a nice terrorist attack.

So, you're saying vote for McCain right, cause the terrorists would? Cause you know, I just can't help pointing out that we've had a few of those a nice terrorist attack. under Bush. Just a few. It seems you would be saying the terrorists prefer Bush and therefore McCain.

I don't get that argument at all. We've had 8 years of fear and terror and 5 years of war with Iraq. Our president has flat out lied to us about our reasons for invading Iraq and we haven't solved any of the crimes of 9/11 nor have we caught that guy, whats his name? Oh yeah, BIN LADEN. We are in financial crisis, fuel is rediculously expensive for us (while recording record profits for the oil companies, fancy that), we've had massive failings of the crumbling government agencies that are supposed to protect us from things like deadly toys, poisonous pet food etc, broken bridges and natural disasters.......

And still the right says "McSame!" I want another helping of that! Can I have a shake with that? Miss Not-Congeniality for president! Let's have the same guy almost but older and more prone to kick the bucket so that we'd be left with the actual Miss Congeniality herself, wondering where things are on the world map. Makes sense to me.

HometownGal
09-27-2008, 01:30 PM
I'd call this one a tie. Contrary to what I've read from some pundits who are trying to spin it (you just can't hide from them, after all), I don't think a tie favors Obama. I don't think it favors McCain, either. I think it is what it is; no decision. Every Obama supporter I've spoken with today has said that Obama crushed McCain; every McCain supporter says just the opposite. You know what that means... it was a tie.



I don't think I can call this one a tie, Mosca, but it wasn't an ass kickin' by McCain either. There were times that I thought Obama appeared somewhat confused and "put on the spot" to answer the Moderator's questions or rebut McCain on something he said. Hell - 8 times - EIGHT - Obama started his rebuttals with "John is right"!! Jmho, but I feel J-Mac came across as the more confident and knowledgeable candidate, especially when debating foreign policy and non-domestic issues.

I am admittedly (and very proudly) a McCain supporter, but I went into last night's debate with an open mind - I wanted to see for myself what the big draw to Obama is and after watching the debate in its entirety, I still don't have an answer. Last night's debate assured me that my support of John McCain is most definitely the right one for me. A confident, strong and very intelligent leader who will do whatever it takes to make America a better place and fight for its veterans who have been getting a raw deal from our government for decades.

CantStop85
09-27-2008, 01:41 PM
Who do you think our enemies want to win....Obama or Mcain... I think the answer is obvious, so vote with our enemies if you want, I'm sure they will thank you for it with a nice terrorist attack.

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u231/cheezeguy/n725075089_288918_2774.jpg

HometownGal
09-27-2008, 01:41 PM
So, you're saying vote for McCain right, cause the terrorists would? Cause you know, I just can't help pointing out that we've had a few of those under Bush. Just a few. It seems you would be saying the terrorists prefer Bush and therefore McCain.

I don't get that argument at all. We've had 8 years of fear and terror and 5 years of war with Iraq. Our president has flat out lied to us about our reasons for invading Iraq and we haven't solved any of the crimes of 9/11 nor have we caught that guy, whats his name? Oh yeah, BIN LADEN. We are in financial crisis, fuel is rediculously expensive for us (while recording record profits for the oil companies, fancy that), we've had massive failings of the crumbling government agencies that are supposed to protect us from things like deadly toys, poisonous pet food etc, broken bridges and natural disasters.......

And still the right says "McSame!" I want another helping of that! Can I have a shake with that? Miss Not-Congeniality for president! Let's have the same guy almost but older and more prone to kick the bucket so that we'd be left with the actual Miss Congeniality herself, wondering where things are on the world map. Makes sense to me.

Typical Democrat sheeple rhetoric. :blah::blah: McCain and Bush were separated at birth, blah, blah, blah. There have been times where McCain has agreed with Bush but also times where he has opposed his policies. Hell - at least McCain shows up to actually vote instead of uttering "present". :laughing:

So we didn't catch Bin Laden yet - so what? We're on the road to taking out Al Qaeda - one by one - and there has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since 911. The fight has stayed over there and hasn't been brought over here. As I've said many, many times on this board - obviously someone is listening that the United States of America isn't going to cowtow to or tolerate terrorism.

I'm no Bush apologist by any stretch of the imagination as I have my issues with him, too, but he did NOT lie to the American people regarding the reasoning behind the Iraq war. He was given the same false information by our intelligence as he passed on to Congress and in turn, to us. I don't know how many times it's going to take before you Demos get that. :doh:

Yes - fuel is at an all time high here in the U.S. but did you ever ask a German or Brit what they've been paying for fuel for the last decade or so? Kind of makes our fuel increase look like a pittance.

We as Americans are spoiled rotten. Go live in a third world country and experience life there - guaranteed you'd be breaking a leg trying to get back on the boat to the U.S.

Leftoverhard
09-27-2008, 02:39 PM
Hell - at least McCain shows up to actually vote instead of uttering "present". :laughing:

You're simplifying the vote of "present."

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/20/fact_check_present_votes_are_a.php

Plus, this probably isn't an argument you want to get into unless you want to look at McCain's voting record too.

So we didn't catch Bin Laden yet - so what? We're on the road to taking out Al Qaeda - one by one

Hmm. Really? I will argue that for every Al Qaeda terrorist we take out, another 2 are created - a result of our current president's foreign "policy" and one that McCain supports.


he did NOT lie to the American people regarding the reasoning behind the Iraq war. He was given the same false information by our intelligence as he passed on to Congress and in turn, to us.

The blame game is fun. When you're 5 and you point at your little brother when asked where the cookies went - but not so much when our President plays it. We trusted this man to find out the truth and instead... well he told us a lie and whether he believe the lie himself or was actually convinced of this flimsy intel (and I happen to believe he's much smarter than he leads us all to believe) - the fault lies squarely on his shoulders.


Yes - fuel is at an all time high here in the U.S. but did you ever ask a German or Brit what they've been paying for fuel for the last decade or so? Kind of makes our fuel increase look like a pittance.

Ah, the old "European fuel has always been high" rhetoric. That's not my point. My point is - Why are the oil companies making record profits in a time of "oil crisis?"

We as Americans are spoiled rotten. Go live in a third world country and experience life there - guaranteed you'd be breaking a leg trying to get back on the boat to the U.S.

This is a real stand-by sort of last-ditch-I-have-nothing kind of catch-all statement when confronted with the possibility of having to admit that you aren't right about everything and maybe everything isn't so black and white after all. This is quite a golden egg.

GBMelBlount
09-27-2008, 02:50 PM
Hmm. Really? I will argue that for every Al Qaeda terrorist we take out, another 2 are created - a result of our current president's foreign "policy" and one that McCain supports.


As a resuIt of our foreign policy, our country has been safe from terrorist attacks since 911. We have virtually won in Iraq!!!! Purely because of Bush's grit and determination to stay the course, despite the attempts of the liberal media and far right to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as they did in Vietnam. Terrorist attacks are down. You can argue all you want that more terrorists have been created. Fact is we have won the war, established a democracy in the middle east and are arguable safer now than we were.

Leftoverhard
09-27-2008, 02:54 PM
As long as this thread is about the debates, I have this.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html

HometownGal
09-27-2008, 03:00 PM
You're simplifying the vote of "present."

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/20/fact_check_present_votes_are_a.php

Plus, this probably isn't an argument you want to get into unless you want to look at McCain's voting record too.



Hmm. Really? I will argue that for every Al Qaeda terrorist we take out, another 2 are created - a result of our current president's foreign "policy" and one that McCain supports.




The blame game is fun. When you're 5 and you point at your little brother when asked where the cookies went - but not so much when our President plays it. We trusted this man to find out the truth and instead... well he told us a lie and whether he believe the lie himself or was actually convinced of this flimsy intel (and I happen to believe he's much smarter than he leads us all to believe) - the fault lies squarely on his shoulders.




Ah, the old "European fuel has always been high" rhetoric. That's not my point. My point is - Why are the oil companies making record profits in a time of "oil crisis?"



This is a real stand-by sort of last-ditch-I-have-nothing kind of catch-all statement when confronted with the possibility of having to admit that you aren't right about everything and maybe everything isn't so black and white after all. This is quite a golden egg.

Nice try, Leftover - thanks for at least attempting to get me to "see the light". :wink02: I'm not going to change my mind and you aren't going to change yours, so it is pointless to argue this any further. I stand by what I said in my post above - every last word.

So - you are right? Based on what - "facts" fresh off Obama's political website? :rofl::laughing: I'd have to say, however, that I suppose that is a gnat's eyelash better than posting "facts" from a blog. :chuckle: Mmmmmmkay - you win. :applaudit::toofunny: If I sincerely felt that I didn't have good points, I wouldn't have posted what I did. It's a matter of how and what you read into it. You are obviously a Liberal and I've found over the years (even when I was a Demo) that you just can't debate fair and square with a Lib.

I'll ask you the same question that has been asked of the couple of Obama supporters on this board, which really has never been answered.

What has Barack Obama done in his extremely short career in public office to qualify him as President of the United States?

I'm being serious here - I really would like your input.

Leftoverhard
09-27-2008, 03:03 PM
Fact is we have won the war, established a democracy in the middle east and are arguable safer now than we were.

Fact is, that's not a fact.

GBMelBlount
09-27-2008, 03:05 PM
Leftoverhard

The blame game is fun. When you're 5 and you point at your little brother when asked where the cookies went - but not so much when our President plays it. We trusted this man to find out the truth and instead... well he told us a lie and whether he believe the lie himself or was actually convinced of this flimsy intel (and I happen to believe he's much smarter than he leads us all to believe) - the fault lies squarely on his shoulders.

Unfortunately as a president you have to make a decision based on the best information you have available. The intelligence from other countries around the world was, though inaccurate perhaps, consistently supported our intelligence. You can't blame Bush for bad intelligence that is corroborated by other countries as well.

Ah, the old "European fuel has always been high" rhetoric. That's not my point. My point is - Why are the oil companies making record profits in a time of "oil crisis?"

If it wasn't for the draconian oil policies of the left the last 35 years, and the 50 cent per gallon government tax, I bet we'd only be paying $2 a gallon. The government makes more profit from the sale of oil, for doing nothing, than the oil companies.

GBMelBlount
09-27-2008, 03:07 PM
Fact is, that's not a fact.


Ya, you're right, especially if Obama wins......All the more reason to stay the course, wouldn't you agree?

Leftoverhard
09-27-2008, 03:08 PM
I'll ask you the same question that has been asked of the couple of Obama supporters on this board, which really has never been answered.

What has Barack Obama done in his extremely short career in public office to qualify him as President of the United States?

I'm being serious here - I really would like your input.

I don't have time now but I'd be glad to answer that question. I'll get back to you. I'm not trying to change your mind HometownGal, I'm arguing that McCain is the same as Bush and/or worse for the country. We need honesty, integrity and CHANGE up in here. We are in the hole with the current administration, we have been bamboozled. Why should we trust McCain? That's my point on this thread.

Mosca
09-27-2008, 03:14 PM
I don't think I can call this one a tie, Mosca, but it wasn't an ass kickin' by McCain either. There were times that I thought Obama appeared somewhat confused and "put on the spot" to answer the Moderator's questions or rebut McCain on something he said. Hell - 8 times - EIGHT - Obama started his rebuttals with "John is right"!! Jmho, but I feel J-Mac came across as the more confident and knowledgeable candidate, especially when debating foreign policy and non-domestic issues.

HTG, every McCain supporter I've spoken to thinks their guy won, and every Obama supporter thinks their guy won. What that tells me is that people saw in their candidate what they wanted to see, and it also tells me that each candidate did a good job of making the points they wanted to; and that most of the difference in perspective as to who won is based on which candidate's platform you agreed with more. For example, I had an Obama supporter tell me that he liked the fact that Obama was more likely to see all sides of an issue; what you characterized as less confident. Each of you saw what you wanted to... and each candidate presented what they thought their constituents wanted to see.

I thought they were both very good; like I said, neither one sucked as much as their detractors thought (or hoped) they would. No one changed anyone's minds last night. That's why I call it a draw.

tony hipchest
09-27-2008, 03:22 PM
Who do you think our enemies want to win....Obama or Mcain... I think the answer is obvious, so vote with our enemies if you want, I'm sure they will thank you for it with a nice terrorist attack.i know this for sure. the 18 or so Saudi Arabians who attacked our nation with our own jets DEFINITELY did not want George Bush in office. His daddy occupied and set up bases in their holy land. Bin Laden declared jihad and as soon as g-dub was in office, he struck.

and now McCain proposes we may be occupying their land for the next 100 years? im sure the terrorists just love this. if theyve got something up their sleeve, im thinking we'll see it not too long after McCain takes office.

i know Rub-a-G-Dublickans love to still pat Bush on the back and say there hasnt been a terrorist attack in our nation sice 9/11. well there wasnt one before then either (unless youre going all the way back to Pearl Harbor). :noidea:

terrorists are evil and theyre not going away. i guess there will always be 50% of our population who prefers a leader who will provoke and instigate them with renegade, 6 shooting, maverick, techniques.

i say its a little short sighted for national security, for these same 50% to be so concerned about what Americans think about a reverend, but totally disregard what the rest of the world thinks about US.

HometownGal
09-27-2008, 03:36 PM
I don't have time now but I'd be glad to answer that question. I'll get back to you. I'm not trying to change your mind HometownGal, I'm arguing that McCain is the same as Bush and/or worse for the country. We need honesty, integrity and CHANGE up in here. We are in the hole with the current administration, we have been bamboozled. Why should we trust McCain? That's my point on this thread.

If you really listened last night, Leftover, you could clearly ascertain from McCain's answers that he is NOT in line with GWB. If I thought he was a GWB mini-me, he wouldn't have my vote (though I don't believe Bush is the anti-Christ some people make him out to be). J-Mac came across to me last night as he's always come across - confident, determined, intelligent, tough as nails and yes - a maverick. He has a proven record in the Senate, is well known by the majority of Americans and is well respected (for the most part) by his constituents in both parties. Obama came out of nowhere - most people never heard of him before he tossed his hat in the ring in the primary. I can't bring myself to place my trust, confidence and possibly my life and the lives of those I love in the hands of an "apprentice President".

I feel it is brutally unfair to clone McCain to GWB simply because he supported GWB in SOME of his proposals and actions. If we are going to do that, we may as well call Obama an out and out racist because of his extremely close alignment with a certifiable loon who hates America and anyone who isn't African American - a man Obama referred to as his "mentor" before he decided to take a run for the Presidency and was smacked in the head with the realization that "whitey" votes too.

Thanks for responding and I will look forward to your reply on what, in your honest opinion, better qualifies Obama for the Presidency of this great country over McCain. :drink:

cubanstogie
09-27-2008, 03:48 PM
If you really listened last night, Leftover, you could clearly ascertain from McCain's answers that he is NOT in line with GWB. If I thought he was a GWB mini-me, he wouldn't have my vote (though I don't believe Bush is the anti-Christ some people make him out to be). J-Mac came across to me last night as he's always come across - confident, determined, intelligent, tough as nails and yes - a maverick. He has a proven record in the Senate, is well known by the majority of Americans and is well respected (for the most part) by his constituents in both parties. Obama came out of nowhere - most people never heard of him before he tossed his hat in the ring in the primary. I can't bring myself to place my trust, confidence and possibly my life and the lives of those I love in the hands of an "apprentice President".

I feel it is brutally unfair to clone McCain to GWB simply because he supported GWB in SOME of his proposals and actions. If we are going to do that, we may as well call Obama an out and out racist because of his extremely close alignment with a certifiable loon who hates America and anyone who isn't African American - a man Obama referred to as his "mentor" before he decided to take a run for the Presidency and was smacked in the head with the realization that "whitey" votes too.

Thanks for responding and I will look forward to your reply on what, in your honest opinion, better qualifies Obama for the Presidency of this great country over McCain. :drink:

I am looking forward to it as well. I don't see how Obama could be better qualified. McCain has done so much more than Barrack, that was evident in the debates. If people voted on qualifications Obama wouldn't have a chance, but people vote on the person that represents their values and beliefs for the most part IMO. I don't think anyone is voting on Obama for his resume, which is fine. I think Obama did a good job last night, I was impressed with both of them. I just don't believe in Socialism, so I wouldn't vote for him. Even though I am not rich(financially) I don't want Robin Hood for president.

HometownGal
09-27-2008, 03:48 PM
I would also like to add something I found very strange that had nothing to do with last night's debate (which can be verified by XT).

XT, myself and a friend were in Dover, DE for 4 days last weekend to attend the NASCAR race at Dover International Speedway. We remarked several times how strange it was that we did not see one Obama/Biden sign anywhere, but saw quite a few McCain and McCain/Palin signs. Delaware is Biden's backyard! :jawdrop:

cubanstogie
09-27-2008, 03:50 PM
I would also like to add something I found very strange that had nothing to do with last night's debate (which can be verified by XT).

XT, myself and a friend were in Dover, DE for 4 days last weekend to attend the NASCAR race at Dover International Speedway. We remarked several times how strange it was that we did not see one Obama/Biden sign anywhere, but saw quite a few McCain and McCain/Palin signs. Delaware is Biden's backyard! :jawdrop:

Telling sign, although libs will dismiss it like they did Palins 90 percent approval rating.

tony hipchest
09-27-2008, 04:04 PM
Not denigrating your post, but I am absolutely and unequivocally denigrating the continued dumbing down of this country. This is "Entertainment Tonight" type garbage, completely unscientific, only relatable to the audience in Mississippi (hardly representative of the Country), not too mention it's a college campus, and certainly comprised of many Gauging the applause in the audience is something I'd expect from American Idol, not a presidential debate.

Shame on CNN.yes, shame on cnn for doing a survey or running poll to guage what people are thinking. i love how you are running with this wacky "applause-o-meter" idea.

either you simply dont know the facts or you are using some very funny math.

how does 133 registered republicans + 133 registered democrats + 133 registered independants = "young liberal college students (who are almost automatically Obama supporters)." ?

regardless of which networks aired the debates we all saw the same 2 people saying the same things.

pushing bias aside (since my mind is already made up) i gave each candidate a clean slate and judged just the merits and styles of their debate. overall i gave obama a slight edge (being a lawyer he probably has more learning and experience in debate.

i can offer critisizm though. he immediately dodged the topic of a question (which mccain did equally so it didnt really hurt) a few times and went to bush blaming. while this may work for some of his voters, it wont work for me. when he said "i got one of those too" (regarding the neckelace thingy from a soldier), i thought it was a bit tit for tat, and uneccessary. i sorta cringed (as im sure you did) when he lauded the billions spent on airport security.

mccai did about as well as i thought he would. unfortunate he had to reach for so many lies and misrepresentation though. again, i expected this.

i like mccain the man. its his party, backers, campaign, and nominations i dont like.

i dont like the stupid and petty ad they ran 30 seconds after the debates clipping the 8 times obama said he was right. so if mccain says bin laden is evil obama is supposed to say he is wrong? :laughing: theres nothing wrong with agreeing with the other side, yet the republicans wanna make us believe there is as they champion mccain as the candidat who will reach across the aisle in agreement, to get things accomplished.

i dont like how his party is desperately searching for a way to give mccain credit for this bail out package when absolutely no credit is deserved or has been earned.

and i definitely dont like the idea of some twit possibly being my leader some day. the gimmicky fraud of a nomination really makes mccain seem like the mike mularkey of politics. he may win some games, but he'll never win the superbowl.

i definitely hope to see obama improve in the next debate and i agree with what i heard (on cnn no less) that it is only fair to give some more time to foreign policy.

tony hipchest
09-27-2008, 04:17 PM
I would also like to add something I found very strange that had nothing to do with last night's debate (which can be verified by XT).

XT, myself and a friend were in Dover, DE for 4 days last weekend to attend the NASCAR race at Dover International Speedway. We remarked several times how strange it was that we did not see one Obama/Biden sign anywhere, but saw quite a few McCain and McCain/Palin signs. Delaware is Biden's backyard! :jawdrop:what???? no pro-democrat signs at a NASCAR race????? :jawdrop:

shocking.

im willing to bet you will see more confederate flags flying at a nascar race than obama banners (infact, i'd put a years salary up on that bet).

not trying to be a dick, just stating the facts.

i love how when it was the Winston Cup, Winston would hand out free packs of cigs to all the kids.... :doh: i mean above 18 years of age smokers. people eat that shit up.

tony hipchest
09-27-2008, 05:08 PM
Hmmm... thanks for supporting my greater argument Tony!! Such close elections ARE turned on things such as what I am arguing when it is that close... I appreciate the help. :thumbsup:

i learned a valuable lesson in 2000. bush beat gore 271 to 266 electoral votes. a difference of five.

new mexico's 5 electoral votes were won by gore by a margin of 363 voters.

although NM had no bearing on the election with florida hanging in the balance, it definitely proved that the small people, even in the small states, can make a HUGE difference. every vote counts, and every vote matters. i try to hammer this point home every time i meet somebody who is not registered to vote.

i dont do much to try and make a difference, but trying to inspire people to vote (no matter for whom) is one of the few things i do.

in fact, im gonna give my 40 employees time off early w/pay if they go vote for obama. :thumbsup: lol not really. they dont care. its amazing how many poor and lower class folks refuse to, dont care, or are too lazy to bother with it.

X-Terminator
09-27-2008, 05:35 PM
what???? no pro-democrat signs at a NASCAR race????? :jawdrop:

shocking.

im willing to bet you will see more confederate flags flying at a nascar race than obama banners (infact, i'd put a years salary up on that bet).

not trying to be a dick, just stating the facts.

i love how when it was the Winston Cup, Winston would hand out free packs of cigs to all the kids.... :doh: i mean above 18 years of age smokers. people eat that shit up.

Not at the race itself, Tony, but driving through the state. Didn't see ONE Obama-Biden sign anywhere in Delaware, not even in Wilmington, where you'd think would be a Democrat stronghold. We stayed right across the river from Wilmington and had to drive through the city a lot during our trip - never saw one.

X-Terminator
09-27-2008, 05:40 PM
in fact, im gonna give my 40 employees time off early w/pay if they go vote for obama. :thumbsup: lol not really. they dont care. its amazing how many poor and lower class folks refuse to, dont care, or are too lazy to bother with it.

I'm willing to bet a lot of them don't care because they feel in the long run, their vote means absolutely nothing. They feel they are going to be screwed no matter who sits in office. And their numbers are growing rapidly.

tony hipchest
09-27-2008, 05:47 PM
Not at the race itself, Tony, but driving through the state. Didn't see ONE Obama-Biden sign anywhere in Delaware, not even in Wilmington, where you'd think would be a Democrat stronghold. We stayed right across the river from Wilmington and had to drive through the city a lot during our trip - never saw one.ok. i thought of that several minutes after my post, and re-reading what i had quoted from HTG.

all i can surmise from that is delaware isnt going to vote democrat. then again, id have to do some research to see if delaware is typically a red or blue state.

perhaps biden and his party just dont need all the advertizing in his home state whereas mccain does. :noidea:

tony hipchest
09-27-2008, 05:56 PM
I'm willing to bet a lot of them don't care because they feel in the long run, their vote means absolutely nothing. They feel they are going to be screwed no matter who sits in office. And their numbers are growing rapidly.:yep: its sad.

even when you show them concrete evidence that thei vote could count.

CantStop85
09-27-2008, 06:52 PM
:yep: its sad.

even when you show them concrete evidence that thei vote could count.

Those people who aren't smart enough to get out and vote shouldn't be voting anyway.

revefsreleets
09-27-2008, 07:01 PM
yes, shame on cnn for doing a survey or running poll to guage what people are thinking. i love how you are running with this wacky "applause-o-meter" idea.

either you simply dont know the facts or you are using some very funny math.

how does 133 registered republicans + 133 registered democrats + 133 registered independants = "young liberal college students (who are almost automatically Obama supporters)." ?

regardless of which networks aired the debates we all saw the same 2 people saying the same things.

pushing bias aside (since my mind is already made up) i gave each candidate a clean slate and judged just the merits and styles of their debate. overall i gave obama a slight edge (being a lawyer he probably has more learning and experience in debate.

i can offer critisizm though. he immediately dodged the topic of a question (which mccain did equally so it didnt really hurt) a few times and went to bush blaming. while this may work for some of his voters, it wont work for me. when he said "i got one of those too" (regarding the neckelace thingy from a soldier), i thought it was a bit tit for tat, and uneccessary. i sorta cringed (as im sure you did) when he lauded the billions spent on airport security.

mccai did about as well as i thought he would. unfortunate he had to reach for so many lies and misrepresentation though. again, i expected this.

i like mccain the man. its his party, backers, campaign, and nominations i dont like.

i dont like the stupid and petty ad they ran 30 seconds after the debates clipping the 8 times obama said he was right. so if mccain says bin laden is evil obama is supposed to say he is wrong? :laughing: theres nothing wrong with agreeing with the other side, yet the republicans wanna make us believe there is as they champion mccain as the candidat who will reach across the aisle in agreement, to get things accomplished.

i dont like how his party is desperately searching for a way to give mccain credit for this bail out package when absolutely no credit is deserved or has been earned.

and i definitely dont like the idea of some twit possibly being my leader some day. the gimmicky fraud of a nomination really makes mccain seem like the mike mularkey of politics. he may win some games, but he'll never win the superbowl.

i definitely hope to see obama improve in the next debate and i agree with what i heard (on cnn no less) that it is only fair to give some more time to foreign policy.

SHOCKING! You gave a slight edge to Obama because (list all your one -sided bias here)...

I don't understand the CNN thing, but I don't like the idea of trying to predict what an entire nation thinks based on what a few hundred people think...it's not statistically sound, and therefore is nothing but a puff piece trying to keep people with short attention spans entertained.

I actually have a few undecided friends, and only 1 of the 4 gave the edge to Obama, and he's a liberal who wanted Clinton. The comments from them? Obama was smug, and quick to intererupt. It's clear why he didn't want to do the town hall things because he's not nearly as quick on his feet as advertised. He also does not have the overwhelming advantage of being so much more articulate than McCain, and lastly, he looked a little uncomfortable.

HometownGal
09-27-2008, 07:30 PM
what???? no pro-democrat signs at a NASCAR race????? :jawdrop:

shocking.

im willing to bet you will see more confederate flags flying at a nascar race than obama banners (infact, i'd put a years salary up on that bet).

not trying to be a dick, just stating the facts.

i love how when it was the Winston Cup, Winston would hand out free packs of cigs to all the kids.... :doh: i mean above 18 years of age smokers. people eat that shit up.

WOW, Bartony - you totally missed the ball here. :doh:

This had nothing to do with the NASCAR race. While we were in Delaware (Friday through Monday), pretty much all over the state as we do a lot more there than just attend the Sunday race, there was not one Obama or Obama/Biden sign anywhere. Don't you find that strange considering that Delaware is Biden's home turf? :doh:

perhaps biden and his party just dont need all the advertizing in his home state whereas mccain does.

Please - please - OH PLEASE - tell me you are kidding here. You're smarter than that. :shake01:

revefsreleets
09-27-2008, 07:41 PM
Yeah, that is a little weird, Marianne. When your own favorite son isn't getting much love at home, that's an interesting barometer. Of course, it pales in comparison to the CNN applause-o-meter, but you know, Obama won that one, so...

steelwall
09-27-2008, 09:02 PM
i know this for sure. the 18 or so Saudi Arabians who attacked our nation with our own jets DEFINITELY did not want George Bush in office. His daddy occupied and set up bases in their holy land. Bin Laden declared jihad and as soon as g-dub was in office, he struck.

and now McCain proposes we may be occupying their land for the next 100 years? im sure the terrorists just love this. if theyve got something up their sleeve, im thinking we'll see it not too long after McCain takes office.

i know Rub-a-G-Dublickans love to still pat Bush on the back and say there hasnt been a terrorist attack in our nation sice 9/11. well there wasnt one before then either (unless youre going all the way back to Pearl Harbor). :noidea:

terrorists are evil and theyre not going away. i guess there will always be 50% of our population who prefers a leader who will provoke and instigate them with renegade, 6 shooting, maverick, techniques.

i say its a little short sighted for national security, for these same 50% to be so concerned about what Americans think about a reverend, but totally disregard what the rest of the world thinks about US.

Come on Toney the terrorists struck us before GWB was in office as well. And Mcains 100 years commment can't be taken litteraly, he was merely insinuating he would stay the course.

I think GWB's foreign policy is not the greatest in the world, but you know what? We have to protect ourselves, if that means pissing off a few nations then so be it.

Our problems with the radical Muslims began a long time ago.

So what does Obama intend to do about the terrorists sit down and have a nice chat?

Preacher
09-27-2008, 10:05 PM
well there wasnt one before then either (unless youre going all the way back to Pearl Harbor)

Wow.... I guess you forgot about the FIRST attack on the world trade center right? Yeah, those were by radical muslims with ties to international terrorism.

revefsreleets
09-27-2008, 10:07 PM
Wow.... I guess you forgot about the FIRST attack on the world trade center right? Yeah, those were by radical muslims with ties to international terrorism.

Hmmmm...can't wait to see the blizzard of spin...

Leftoverhard
09-28-2008, 12:34 PM
What has Barack Obama done in his extremely short career in public office to qualify him as President of the United States?


Why Barack Obama is qualified to be President of The USA.

Qualifications for the Office of President

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once*.

So, as far being qualified*, there you go. Anyone can be President in this great country*. Look at our current Leader.

Oh, you wanted something else? O.K.....

The Democratic nominee for President is a man who became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, a civil rights lawyer and taught constitutional law before becoming the 3rd African American elected to the U.S Senate since reconstruction. He served 8 years in the state Senate and 4 years in the Senate – which in my opinion makes him perfectly qualified (oh and I’m not alone – most of the left in this country have already given him their vote as seen during the Democratic Primaries). Remember, we aren’t some “fringe” group - we make up roughly 50% of the country. I’ve been paying attention to Barack Obama since he was barely a blip on the radar – his enthusiasm and refreshingly positive ideas made me interested and when he decided to run for President I was pretty stoked. His personality qualities of "genuine, diplomatic and level-headed" are very important personality qualities to me when looking at politicians. Experience comes in many forms. It isn't just "how long has this guy been in Washington?"

So, you say that McCain is more qualified? Sometimes qualified in politics means more corrupt/jaded. His time in Washington has been long, sure, but I think that makes him a real politician’s politician. His age is of real concern to me. His choice of Sarah Palin for VP is suspect at best. Is she qualified? Well, technically*. Did anyone vote for her? No and this is relevant because of McCain’s age. Is he qualified? Sure he is. Is that my only consideration? Nope.

This is my opinion. I want to answer you as best as I can because I think it's important even if we aren't going to change each other's minds here, that we can have healthy debate. I respect your opinion. Obviously our differences are are totally outweighed by what we have in common, which is the case with almost all Americans and even all humans. Just look at your Getting to Know You! thread. Just look where we're debating. :drink:

fansince'76
09-28-2008, 12:54 PM
The Democratic nominee for President is a man who became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, a civil rights lawyer and taught constitutional law before becoming the 3rd African American elected to the U.S Senate since reconstruction. He served 8 years in the Senate – which in my opinion makes him perfectly qualified (oh and I’m not alone – most of the left in this country have already given him their vote as seen during the Democratic Primaries).

He's been a U.S. senator since 2005 - where are you getting eight years?

Leftoverhard
09-28-2008, 01:20 PM
*Clarification - Obama served in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004 while teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He was elected to the U.S Senate in November 2004.

HometownGal
09-28-2008, 02:56 PM
Why Barack Obama is qualified to be President of The USA.

Qualifications for the Office of President

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once*.

So, as far being qualified*, there you go. Anyone can be President in this great country*. Look at our current Leader.

Oh, you wanted something else? O.K.....

The Democratic nominee for President is a man who became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, a civil rights lawyer and taught constitutional law before becoming the 3rd African American elected to the U.S Senate since reconstruction. He served 8 years in the state Senate and 4 years in the Senate – which in my opinion makes him perfectly qualified (oh and I’m not alone – most of the left in this country have already given him their vote as seen during the Democratic Primaries). Remember, we aren’t some “fringe” group - we make up roughly 50% of the country. I’ve been paying attention to Barack Obama since he was barely a blip on the radar – his enthusiasm and refreshingly positive ideas made me interested and when he decided to run for President I was pretty stoked. His personality qualities of "genuine, diplomatic and level-headed" are very important personality qualities to me when looking at politicians. Experience comes in many forms. It isn't just "how long has this guy been in Washington?"

So, you say that McCain is more qualified? Sometimes qualified in politics means more corrupt/jaded. His time in Washington has been long, sure, but I think that makes him a real politician’s politician. His age is of real concern to me. His choice of Sarah Palin for VP is suspect at best. Is she qualified? Well, technically*. Did anyone vote for her? No and this is relevant because of McCain’s age. Is he qualified? Sure he is. Is that my only consideration? Nope.

This is my opinion. I want to answer you as best as I can because I think it's important even if we aren't going to change each other's minds here, that we can have healthy debate. I respect your opinion. Obviously our differences are are totally outweighed by what we have in common, which is the case with almost all Americans and even all humans. Just look at your Getting to Know You! thread. Just look where we're debating. :drink:

Thank you for replying Leftover. :thumbsup:

When I asked you what qualified Obama for the highest office in the land, I did not mean legal qualifications. I was referring to his accomplishments while in the Illinois and United States Senate(s). You did not address those in your post.

You and I are obviously different in what qualities we look for in a candidate who will hold the office of President of this great country and that is fine. I respect your opinion, though I do have to question your stated reasoning for wanting to elect an unknown (do nothing, sorry) JUNIOR U.S. Senator (a mere 3 years experience in that capacity, assuming office in January, 2005) to lead this country.

I’ve been paying attention to Barack Obama since he was barely a blip on the radar – his enthusiasm and refreshingly positive ideas made me interested and when he decided to run for President I was pretty stoked. His personality qualities of "genuine, diplomatic and level-headed" are very important personality qualities to me when looking at politicians.

What ideas? That is one of my major problems with Obama - he preaches CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE without really elaborating on the changes he plans to incorporate. Sure we may hear a meander here and a "blip" there from him (last Friday's debate as an example), but he doesn't go into detail about his positions on any given issue.

We do greatly differ in our consideration of a candidate's "personality" when supporting a Presidential candidate. I don't care if our Prez has the personality of a Rottweiler (some feel McCain has a similar personality - LOL!). When supporting a candidate for any office, their experience and ability to rationally resolve (or attempt to resolve) any given situation or issue plays a huge part in garnering my support. Senator McCain's experience and record speaks for itself. Senator Obama's simply does not, imho.

I think you and your fellow Libs are going to be quite surprised when it comes to Obama getting the majority of the liberal vote. Some have already abandoned him (including here in PA where he holds a very slight edge over McCain as of last week, a huge danger sign for Obama as the Demo voters here almost triples the GOP voters) because has been attempting to lean more towards the "center" in recent weeks.

Obviously our differences are are totally outweighed by what we have in common, which is the case with almost all Americans and even all humans. Just look at your Getting to Know You! thread. Just look where we're debating. :drink:

Very true, Leftover. Again, thank you for your input :drink:, though I am still scratching my head as to the whys and becauses of those who support Obama.

cubanstogie
09-28-2008, 07:15 PM
Why Barack Obama is qualified to be President of The USA.

Qualifications for the Office of President

Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 – ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once*.

So, as far being qualified*, there you go. Anyone can be President in this great country*. Look at our current Leader.

Oh, you wanted something else? O.K.....

The Democratic nominee for President is a man who became the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, a civil rights lawyer and taught constitutional law before becoming the 3rd African American elected to the U.S Senate since reconstruction. He served 8 years in the state Senate and 4 years in the Senate – which in my opinion makes him perfectly qualified (oh and I’m not alone – most of the left in this country have already given him their vote as seen during the Democratic Primaries). Remember, we aren’t some “fringe” group - we make up roughly 50% of the country. I’ve been paying attention to Barack Obama since he was barely a blip on the radar – his enthusiasm and refreshingly positive ideas made me interested and when he decided to run for President I was pretty stoked. His personality qualities of "genuine, diplomatic and level-headed" are very important personality qualities to me when looking at politicians. Experience comes in many forms. It isn't just "how long has this guy been in Washington?"

So, you say that McCain is more qualified? Sometimes qualified in politics means more corrupt/jaded. His time in Washington has been long, sure, but I think that makes him a real politician’s politician. His age is of real concern to me. His choice of Sarah Palin for VP is suspect at best. Is she qualified? Well, technically*. Did anyone vote for her? No and this is relevant because of McCain’s age. Is he qualified? Sure he is. Is that my only consideration? Nope.

This is my opinion. I want to answer you as best as I can because I think it's important even if we aren't going to change each other's minds here, that we can have healthy debate. I respect your opinion. Obviously our differences are are totally outweighed by what we have in common, which is the case with almost all Americans and even all humans. Just look at your Getting to Know You! thread. Just look where we're debating. :drink:

He should be president of the ACLU but not the USA. Obama has no substance. He is a facade for the libs to cling to. Black, articulate,smooth talker. He will get the minority votes, and low income votes, or people struggling to make ends meat who think he will actually help them. Wrong, they need to help themselves. Obama will bail no one out of their miserable financial state. He is clinging to the change slogan in hopes of getting the vote of people who are in a financial hardship, and those that do not like accountability, therefore vote for socialism. To be fair, I also think Palin is a facade for similar reasons. Female, stongly conservative, attractive. No doubt she was chosen to steal some "Hillary" votes, and I like the choice for the fact it will help McCain gain some votes.

revefsreleets
09-29-2008, 08:53 AM
I mean, I get it. The Dems are forced to sell a used and rusted out 72 Pinto, so they are putting their best foot forward. "You know, it gets pretty good gas mileage, and, well, Hell, it's cheap! The expoding gas tank? Nah, that only a happened a few times. Trust me, this baby is a real peach!"

I appreciate the zeal that these guys are approaching this with...it's fun to see the creativity it takes to make this guy from nothing into Presidential material...like a David Copperfield trick.

But I also have the feeling that Obama could go up on stage, pull his pants down and light farts for 90 minutes at the next debate and the Dem supporters on here would claim a sweeping victory for the guy. There is just no budging them, even though their candidate is a lemon.

GBMelBlount
09-29-2008, 10:52 AM
i know this for sure. the 18 or so Saudi Arabians who attacked our nation with our own jets DEFINITELY did not want George Bush in office. His daddy occupied and set up bases in their holy land. Bin Laden declared jihad and as soon as g-dub was in office, he struck.


You're making it sound like that is the only reason they declaredd jihad and then struck us (after years of planning) was because of Bush I. And then you make it sound as if they planned it for years, knowing in advance Bush would be president. That is REALLY reaching imo. This comes across like many liberals who act like the jihadists are good people who were simply provoked. *head shake* *kick in the a$$* *hit over head with bat* :chuckle:

Leftoverhard
09-29-2008, 10:55 AM
He should be president of the ACLU but not the USA. Obama has no substance.

No? What do you consider substance? Why the ACLU?

He is a facade for the libs to cling to. Black, articulate,smooth talker. He will get the minority votes, and low income votes, or people struggling to make ends meat who think he will actually help them. Wrong, they need to help themselves.

So, you're saying that roughly half of the country is clinging to a facade? That second sentence - well, I'm going to ignore that. Hmm, Obama's getting my vote and I don't fall into any of those categories. How to you propose those people help themselves? Voting for a candidate who proposes to help them is probably a pretty good idea right? I mean, that is the way a Democracy works. Should they just shut up and get back to their two or three jobs and trust the man behind the curtain?

Obama will bail no one out of their miserable financial state. He is clinging to the change slogan in hopes of getting the vote of people who are in a financial hardship, and those that do not like accountability, therefore vote for socialism.

He isn't proposing to "bail" anyone out. If you really believe that the President has that much power, you're sadly mistaken. Just because people want change and are justifiably fed up with the current administration doesn't mean they don't "like" accountability. Hey, I have an idea, instead of just blasting Obama and his supporters, why don't you offer something, like - why is John McCain (or some other candidate) so much better?

To be fair, I also think Palin is a facade for similar reasons. Female, stongly conservative, attractive. No doubt she was chosen to steal some "Hillary" votes, and I like the choice for the fact it will help McCain gain some votes.

How would you describe John McCain? White, conservative, old?
I'd rather not. I'd rather look at the candidate as he is - A man who's running for President. A man I actually respect in some ways, who for some crazy reason, wants to inherit the vast kingdom of problems left by our current fearless leader. Same thing goes for Barack Obama, I just happen to agree with him on way more issues.

revefsreleets
09-29-2008, 11:59 AM
Again, all you're going to hear here is how great the 72 Pinto is. The Dems have no other choice. This is the guy their party gave them, so they will find some way to make him into what he's not: Presidential material.

Look back and read back at some of the huge reaches people on the Obama wagon have been forced to make. Comparisons to Lincoln and Kennedy? Touting his work as a community organizer? Defending his record of not really having a record?

Look, I think he's a fine and honorable man, and I give him and McCain both props because I do think that both genuinely think they can help right this sinking ship, but Obama is just way out of his depth here. That was evident during the debates when he was off-balance and stumbling (and this guy is supposed to be the "Great Orator").

But I don't fault you for defending him, and trying to spin him in the best light possible...but a 72 Pinto is always just going to be a 72 Pinto.

HometownGal
09-29-2008, 12:02 PM
Same thing goes for Barack Obama, I just happen to agree with him on way more issues.

Hey Leftover. :drink:

What issues do you agree with him on? I've never heard Obama take a firm stance on anything except that he is going to CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE. Change what? HIs underwear?

MACH1
09-29-2008, 12:11 PM
Hey Leftover. :drink:

What issues do you agree with him on? I've never heard Obama take a firm stance on anything except that he is going to CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE. Change what? HIs underwear?

If you wait till tomorrow he will change his mind. :laughing:

http://www.nowheremangraphics.com/glog_images/Vive_Le_FlipFlop.jpg

Leftoverhard
09-29-2008, 01:53 PM
Hey Leftover. :drink:

What issues do you agree with him on? I've never heard Obama take a firm stance on anything except that he is going to CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE. Change what? HIs underwear?

He has very firm stances on quite a few things. He's also willing to change in order to compromise if need be. I see that as a great attribute. The President after all, is the voice of the people and the people are clearly divided on a number of issues. His campaign message of change is relevant on so many levels and resonates with too many Americans to be ignored and blown off as a gimmick.

Here's Barack Obama on the issues. It's a very long list. I agree with Obama on many more issues than I agree with John McCain. I would just link to it but I think this has more weight.

Barack Obama on Budget & Economy

Can't do anything at home with $12 billion a month on Iraq. (Feb 2008)
Protect consumers with Credit Card Bill of Rights. (Feb 2008)
More accountability in subprime mortgages. (Feb 2008)
Bush stimulus plan leaves out seniors & unemployed. (Jan 2008)
Voted against limiting credit to 30%, because 30% too high. (Jan 2008)
Account for every single dollar for new proposed programs. (Jan 2008)
Help the homeowners actually living in their homes. (Jan 2008)
Bankruptcy bill pushed by banks &. (Jan 2008)
Lack of an energy policy is a financial burden. (Jan 2008)
Bush & GOP dug budget hole; need years to dig out. (Dec 2007)
Save $150 billion in tax cuts for people who don't need them. (Dec 2007)
Take China "to the mat" about currency manipulation. (Dec 2007)
Rejects free market vision of government. (Oct 2007)
Regulate financial instruments to protect home mortgages. (Aug 2007)
Government regulation needed for when markets fail. (Aug 2007)
Return to PayGo: compensate for all new spending. (Oct 2006)
Bush's economic policies are not working. (May 2004)
Supports federal programs to protect rural economy. (May 2004)
Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Get minorities into home ownership & global marketplace. (Jan 2001)
Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages. (Dec 2007)
Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy. (Feb 2008)


Barack Obama on Civil Rights

Hate crimes related to the immigration issue is unacceptable. (Feb 2008)
People want to move beyond our divisions. (Jan 2008)
2004 DNC speech merged "heritage" with "diversity". (Dec 2007)
The politics of fear undermines basic civil liberties. (Oct 2007)
1980s boss predicted Obama would be heir to MLK's voice. (Aug 2007)
Racial equality good for America as a whole. (Jun 2007)
Put the Confederate flag in a museum, not the state house. (Apr 2007)
Muslim heritage gives Obama unique influence in Muslim world. (Oct 2006)
No black or white America--just United States of America. (Oct 2006)
Gays should not face discrimination but should not marry. (Oct 2004)
Forthright on racial issues and on his civil rights history. (Jul 2004)
Defend freedom and equality under law. (May 2004)
Politicians: don't use religion to insulate from criticism. (Apr 2004)
Miscegenation a felony in 1960 when Obamas practiced it. (Aug 1996)
The civil rights movement was a success. (Aug 1996)
Affirmative Action
Apply affirmative action to poor white college applicants. (Apr 2008)
Fight job discrimination to give women equal footing at jobs. (Feb 2008)
Remove discriminatory barriers to the right to vote. (Feb 2008)
Benefited from affirmative action but overcame via merit. (Dec 2007)
Include class-based affirmative action with race-based. (Oct 2007)
Better enforce women's pay equity via Equal Pay Act. (Aug 2007)
Blacks should infiltrate mainstream to affect change. (Aug 2007)
African-Americans vote Democratic because of issue stances. (Jul 2004)
Supports affirmative action in colleges and government. (Jul 1998)
Gay Rights
Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)
Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)
Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007)
Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)
Voting Record
Strengthen the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Ending racial profiling is part of fight for justice. (Jan 2001)
Sponsored bill for special-needs evacuation plans. (Sep 2005)
Sponsored bill for a Rosa Parks commemorative postage stamp. (Dec 2005)
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 100% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
Provide benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees. (Dec 2007)
Re-introduce the Equal Rights Amendment. (Mar 2007)
Reinforce anti-discrimination and equal-pay requirements. (Jan 2008)


Barack Obama on Corporations

Cap the farm subsidies for Fortune 500 companies. (Dec 2007)
End tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. (Aug 2007)
Hold corporations responsible for pensions & work conditions. (Aug 2007)
Tax incentives for corporate responsibility. (Jun 2004)
Close tax loopholes for US companies relocating abroad. (Jun 2004)
REAL USA Plan: Reward companies that create domestic jobs. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)
Prevent money laundering by disclosing corporate owners. (May 2008)


Barack Obama on Crime

Reduce recidivism by providing ex-offender supports. (Feb 2008)
Ban racial profiling & eliminate disparities in sentencing. (Feb 2008)
Have a civil rights division enforce laws fairly and justly. (Jan 2008)
GovWatch: No, more young black men in college than in prison. (Jan 2008)
Lack of enforcement sets tone for more hate crimes. (Dec 2007)
Legislated protecting police detainees during interrogation. (Nov 2007)
Pushed Illinois bill to videotape all capital interrogations. (Oct 2007)
No extra penalty for gang association. (Oct 2007)
Works on ex-offender laws because it could have been him. (Aug 2007)
Need justice that is not just us, but is everybody. (Jun 2007)
Some heinous crimes justify the ultimate punishment. (Oct 2006)
Videotape all capital punishment interrogations. (Oct 2006)
Passed 150 laws to toughen penalties for violent crime. (Oct 2004)
Restrict police entry rules, to protect our civil liberties. (Oct 2004)
Death penalty should be enforced fairly and with caution. (Oct 2004)
Death penalty should not discriminate by gang membership. (Oct 2004)
Battles legislatively against the death penalty. (Jul 2004)
Supports alternative sentencing and rehabilitation. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (Mar 2007)
Rated 75% by the NCJA, indicating a mixed record on criminal justice. (Dec 2005)

Leftoverhard
09-29-2008, 01:56 PM
Barack Obama on Drugs

Look at needle exchange; and expand treatment. (Feb 2008)
Fight to rid our communities of meth. (Feb 2008)
Expand drug courts; help prisoners with substance abuse. (Feb 2008)
2001: questions harsh penalties for drug dealing. (Oct 2007)
Not first candidate to use drugs, but first honest about it. (Oct 2007)
Do not lower drinking age from 21 to 18. (Sep 2007)
Experimented with cocaine but turned down heroin. (Aug 2007)
A "secret smoker", especially around reporters. (Aug 2007)
Smokes cigarettes now; smoked some pot in high school. (Feb 2007)
Admitted marijuana use in high school & college. (Jan 2007)
Deal with street-level drug dealing as minimum-wage affair. (Oct 2006)
Understand why youngsters want to use drugs. (Aug 1996)
Require chemical resellers to certify against meth use. (Sep 2007)


Barack Obama on Education

Merit pay ok if based on career instead of a single test. (Apr 2008)
Evolution & science aren't incompatible with Christian faith. (Apr 2008)
Supports charter schools; it's important to experiment. (Feb 2008)
Children's First Agenda: zero to five early education. (Feb 2008)
$4,000 college tuition for 100 hours' public service a year. (Feb 2008)
Put billions of dollars into early childhood education. (Jan 2008)
Need after-school and summer programs with good parenting. (Jan 2008)
Get parents re-engaged in educating the children. (Dec 2007)
We need a sense of urgency about improving education system. (Sep 2007)
Nationwide program to reconstruct crumbling school buildings. (Sep 2007)
STEP UP: summer learning opportunities for disadvantaged. (Aug 2007)
We left the money behind for No Child Left Behind. (Aug 2007)
Pay "master teachers" extra, but with buy-in from teachers. (Aug 2007)
Sends kids to private school; but wants good schools for all. (Jul 2007)
Supreme Court was wrong on school anti-integration ruling. (Jul 2007)
Incentives to hire a million teachers over next decade. (Jun 2007)
Pay teachers more money & treat them like professionals. (Jun 2007)
Public school system status quo is indefensible. (Oct 2006)
More teacher pay in exchange for more teacher accountability. (Oct 2006)
Guarantee affordable life-long, top-notch education. (Jun 2006)
Sex education needed to help children discuss molestation. (Oct 2004)
Provide decent funding and get rid of anti-intellectualism. (Jul 2004)
Address the growing achievement gap between students. (May 2004)
Will add 25,000 teachers in high-need areas. (May 2004)
Supports charter schools and private investment in schools. (Jul 1998)
Free public college for any student with B-average. (Jul 1998)
Voting Record
First Senate bill: increase Pell Grant from $4,050 to $5,100. (Aug 2007)
Sponsored legislations that recruit and reward good teachers. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)

Barack Obama on Energy & Oil

GOP right on cap-&-trade: guidelines instead of bureaucracy. (Apr 2008)
Raise fuel efficiency standards to reduce long-term demand. (Apr 2008)
Reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. (Feb 2008)
FactCheck: Self-contradictory on Bush's clean-energy plan. (Jan 2008)
Reduce the consumption of energy and be more efficient. (Jan 2008)
Aggressively address accelerating climate change. (Dec 2007)
Fuel efficiency and Middle East stability help on fuel costs. (Oct 2007)
Nuclear power ok if we safeguard against waste & terrorism. (Sep 2007)
Explore nuclear power as part of alternative energy mix. (Jul 2007)
Cheney met environmentalists once; but Big Oil 40 times. (Jul 2007)
Cap-and-trade carbon emissions; raise CAFE standard. (Jun 2007)
Stop sending $800M a day to Mideast dictators for oil. (Mar 2007)
Wants Detroit to build more hybrids & use more ethanol. (Oct 2006)
We cannot drill our way out of our addiction to oil. (Oct 2006)
3-way win: economy, environment, & stop funding terror. (Jun 2006)
Cap-and-trade is more specific on reducing greenhouse gases. (Jan 2006)
Conserve, develop alternative fuels, increase efficiencies. (Oct 2004)
Sponsored legislations that improve energy efficiency. (Sep 2004)
20% nation's power supply from renewable sources by 2020. (Sep 2004)
20% renewable energy by 2020. (Jul 2004)
Invest in alternative energy sources. (Jun 2004)
Increase CAFE to 40 mpg. (Jun 2004)
Tradable credits for renewable energy. (Jun 2004)
Renewable Fuels Standard: require ethanol in fuel supply. (May 2004)
Voting Record
Passed tax credit for installing E85 ethanol at gas stations. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill for tax credit for providing 85% ethanol gas. (Apr 2005)
Sponsored bill to notify public when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)
Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)


Barack Obama on Environment

Genesis teaches stewardship of earth: sacrifice for future. (Apr 2008)
Regulate animal feeding operations for pollution. (Feb 2008)
Will end the notion of Yucca Mountain nuclear storage. (Jan 2008)
Promote green technologies and fuel efficiency standards. (Dec 2007)
Organized inner-city recycling; fought environmental racism. (Oct 2007)
Reduce mercury and lead to protect community health. (Aug 2007)
Protect the Great Lakes & our National Parks and Forests. (Aug 2007)
1985: Organized asbestos removal in Chicago housing project. (Aug 2007)
Passed lead abatement & 24 other laws in IL Senate. (Aug 2007)
Give Katrina contracts to locals, not to Halliburton. (Jun 2007)
Scored 60% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007)
Three months working on minority students recycling. (Aug 1996)
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Tax credit to remove lead-based housepaint. (Nov 2005)
Establish commission to examine Katrina response. (Sep 2005)
Sponsored health impact bill for environmental health. (Apr 2006)
Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting. (Jan 2007)

Leftoverhard
09-29-2008, 01:59 PM
Barack Obama on Families & Children

Teach both abstinence and contraception to teens. (Apr 2008)
Expand flex-work & Family and Medical Leave Act. (Feb 2008)
Parents should control what's coming over the airwaves. (Jan 2008)
Restore dream of making children's lives better than parents. (Dec 2007)
All kids should learn about sexual abuse. (Jul 2007)
FactCheck: 'Sex Ed for Kindergarten' means 'age-appropriate'. (Jul 2007)
Listening to evangelicals bridges major political fault line. (Oct 2006)
Sponsored bill banning high lead levels in children's toys. (Nov 2005)


Barack Obama on Foreign Policy

Meet with Cuban leaders only with agenda of US interests. (Feb 2008)
Cuba: Loosen restrictions now; normalization later. (Feb 2008)
Important to undo the damage of the last seven years. (Feb 2008)
Never negotiate out of fear, and never fear to negotiate. (Jan 2008)
Ok to postpone Pakistani elections, but not indefinitely. (Dec 2007)
Pakistan crisis: secure nukes; continue with elections. (Dec 2007)
President must abide by international human rights treaties. (Dec 2007)
Obama Doctrine: ideology has overridden facts and reality. (Dec 2007)
China is a competitor but not an enemy. (Dec 2007)
Willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il & Hugo Chavez. (Nov 2007)
Wrote 2006 law stabilizing Congo with $52M. (Oct 2007)
No Obama Doctrine; just democracy, security, liberty. (Oct 2007)
Invest in our relationship with Mexico. (Sep 2007)
Strengthen NATO to face 21st-century threats. (Aug 2007)
$50B annually to strengthen weak states at risk of collapse. (Aug 2007)
No "strategic ambiguity" on foreign policy issues. (Aug 2007)
At college, protested for divestment from South Africa. (Aug 2007)
Increased aid to Republic of Congo. (Aug 2007)
Visited largest slum in Africa, to publicize its plight. (Aug 2007)
My critics engineered our biggest foreign policy disaster. (Aug 2007)
China is a competitor, but not an enemy. (Aug 2007)
Meet with enemy leaders; it's a disgrace that we have not. (Jul 2007)
No-fly zone in Darfur; but pay attention more in Africa. (Jun 2007)
Europe & Japan are allies, but China is a competitor. (Apr 2007)
Palestinian people suffer-but from not recognizing Israel. (Apr 2007)
FactCheck: Palestinian suffering from stalled peace effort. (Apr 2007)
Protested South African apartheid while at college. (Feb 2007)
Focus on corruption to improve African development. (Oct 2006)
Supports Israel's self-defense; but distrusted by Israelis. (Oct 2006)
Visited Africa in 2006; encouraged HIV testing & research. (Oct 2006)
Never has US had so much power & so little influence to lead. (Jul 2004)
US policy should promote democracy and human rights. (Jul 2004)
Sponsored aid bill to avert humanitarian crisis in Congo. (Dec 2005)
Urge Venezuela to re-open dissident radio & TV stations. (May 2007)
Let Ukraine & Georgia enter NATO. (Jan 2008)
Condemn violence by Chinese government in Tibet. (Apr 2008)
Sanction Mugabe until Zimbabwe transitions to democracy. (Apr 2008)


Barack Obama on Free Trade

Strong labor, safety, and environmental standards on trade. (Feb 2008)
More Transition Assistance for displaced workers. (Feb 2008)
Enforce environmental & labor provisions in trade agreements. (Jan 2008)
Enforce existing safety laws against Chinese products. (Dec 2007)
NAFTA needs to be amended. (Dec 2007)
Stand firm against CAFTA for labor & environmental standards. (Aug 2007)
Congress subsidizes megafarms & hurts family farmers. (Aug 2007)
People don't want cheaper T-shirts if it costs their job. (Aug 2007)
Amend NAFTA to add labor agreements. (Aug 2007)
Reinvest in communities that are burdened by globalization. (Jun 2007)
Insist on labor and human rights standards for China trade. (Jul 2004)
Fair trade should have tangible benefits for US. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)

Barack Obama on Government Reform

Lobbyists & special interests have strangle-hold on agenda. (Feb 2008)
Consistently in favor of more disclosure around earmarks. (Feb 2008)
Created a publicly searchable database on earmarks spending. (Feb 2008)
Need a government that listens to the people again. (Feb 2008)
Give D.C. the opportunity to elect its own representatives. (Feb 2008)
Shine light on federal contracts, earmarks, & proposed bills. (Feb 2008)
Capping credit card interest rates at 30% is not enough. (Jan 2008)
Never took money from federal lobbyists or their companies. (Jan 2008)
Release people in bankruptcy due to health care problems. (Jan 2008)
I opposed both the 2001 and 2005 bankruptcy bills. (Jan 2008)
Accountability and oversight over the financial markets. (Jan 2008)
Modify some of the fraudulent & predatory lending practices. (Jan 2008)
Bad idea to over-classify information. (Dec 2007)
Bush's signing statements are a clear abuse of prerogative. (Dec 2007)
Public submits policy ideas on Obama's "My Policy" website. (Oct 2007)
Create "Google for Government" to track government spending. (Aug 2007)
Prayer can't prevent disasters; good policy can handle them. (Aug 2007)
1998: First law passed, 52-4, stripping legislator perks. (Aug 2007)
2004: Used state money for seemingly political mailing. (Aug 2007)
Registered 150,000 new minority voters in Chicago in 1992. (Jul 2007)
Half of us don't vote; time for taking it back. (Jun 2007)
Sponsored bill to disclose earmarks on Internet. (Oct 2006)
Filibuster has long tradition, but used to harm civil rights. (Oct 2006)
Electing US Senators empowers people: keep 17th Amendment. (Oct 2004)
People are really ready for a message for change. (Jul 2004)
Campaign race baiting works in both directions. (Aug 1996)
Campaign Finance Reform
Ended corporate jet travel subsidized by lobbyists. (Feb 2008)
No lobbyist money; no PAC money; fund campaigns instead. (Jan 2008)
Money is the original sin in politics and I am not sinless. (Nov 2007)
Reduced cost TV ads for candidates; $85M presidential limit. (Oct 2007)
Ok to take $5 donations from drug company employees. (Sep 2007)
Public campaign financing with free television & radio time. (Aug 2007)
No "bundled" money from federal-registered lobbyists. (Aug 2007)
Campaigns last too long & cost too much. (Aug 2007)
Doesn't take PAC money or federal lobbyists' money. (Jul 2007)
People know his "bundlers" because he pushed disclosure law. (Jul 2007)
FactCheck: no lobbyist money; yes from bundlers who lobby. (Jul 2007)
First bill ever passed was campaign finance reform. (Apr 2007)
FactCheck: no lobbyist money, yes from lobbyist spouses. (Apr 2007)
Hopefund PAC pushes government to honor sacred commitments. (Nov 2006)
Lobbyist influence comes from access, not money. (Oct 2006)
Voting Record
FactCheck: Yes, Obama cast 130 "present" votes in IL Senate. (Jan 2008)
Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
Election reform is #1 priority to prevent disenfranchisement. (Jan 2001)
Sponsored bill criminalizing deceptive info about elections. (Nov 2005)
Sponsored resolution rejecting photo ID for voting. (Sep 2005)
Sponsored bill to post earmarks on the Internet. (Jan 2006)
Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections. (Mar 2007)
Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting. (Nov 2007)


Barack Obama on Gun Control

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Leftoverhard
09-29-2008, 02:01 PM
Barack Obama on Health Care

End-of-life self-medication ok; euthanasia by others not ok. (Apr 2008)
Hillary's plan must either be enforced, or leave out people. (Feb 2008)
The problem with health care is about affordability. (Jan 2008)
Subsidies to people who can't afford care--not single payer. (Jan 2008)
Bring GOP & Dems together to make haelthcare affordable. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Reducing obesity would save $18B, not $1T. (Dec 2007)
Reforms in prevention and drug price negotiation save money. (Dec 2007)
Tackle insurance companies on reimbursement system. (Oct 2007)
Help young people deal with the cost of medical education. (Oct 2007)
Morally wrong that terminally ill must consider money. (Sep 2007)
FactCheck: Correct that insurance lobbying cost $1B. (Sep 2007)
National smoking bans only after trying local bans. (Sep 2007)
Reform failed in '90s because of drug company lobbying. (Jul 2007)
Take on insurance companies; drive down health care costs. (Jun 2007)
Address minority health needs by more coverage & targeting. (Mar 2007)
Health care tied to balancing costs and taxes nation wide. (Jun 2006)
Allowing seniors to bulk purchase will save taxpayers' money. (Oct 2004)
Allow prescription drug re-importation. (May 2004)
AIDS
Use whatever works with AIDS, including teaching abstinence. (Apr 2008)
We need condom distribution to deal with the scourge of AIDS. (Aug 2007)
Homophobia prevents talking about HIV/AIDS. (Jun 2007)
Got tested for AIDS, with wife, in public, in Kenya. (Jun 2007)
Lead global fight against AIDS. (Jul 2004)
Universal Coverage
AdWatch: My plan costs $2,500 less per family than Clinton's. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Unclear if Obama's plan costs less than Clinton's. (Apr 2008)
Universal health care means anyone who wants it can get it. (Feb 2008)
Insurers are happy to have a mandate; issue is affordability. (Feb 2008)
Voluntary universal participation, like in Medicare Part B. (Feb 2008)
Mandating kids' insurance ok; mandating adults has problems. (Feb 2008)
Young adults up to age 25 can be covered under parents' plan. (Feb 2008)
My plan does more than anybody to reduce costs. (Feb 2008)
My health plan does not leave 15 million people uncovered. (Feb 2008)
Adults will get health care as they can afford it. (Feb 2008)
AdWatch: punishing uninsured families doesn't make sense. (Feb 2008)
FactCheck: Hillary's plan does mandate; but so does Obama's. (Feb 2008)
No one turned away due to illness or pre-existing condition. (Feb 2008)
Buy private insurance via National Health Insurance Exchange. (Feb 2008)
Against enforcement mechanism for mandating insurance. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama favored single-payer, despite denial. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: No, US costs are not twice as much as others. (Jan 2008)
AdWatch: Pressure insurance & drug companies to change. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: OPPORTUNITY to insure all, but no GUARANTEE. (Jan 2008)
AdWatch: Don't make it illegal not to have health care. (Jan 2008)
Being poor in this country is hazardous to your health. (Dec 2007)
Problem isn't mandating coverage, but affording it. (Nov 2007)
FactCheck: Coverage plan might leave 8.5 million uninsured. (Nov 2007)
Cautious incremental plan offers choice & subsidy. (Nov 2007)
Added 20,000 children to Illinois healthcare. (Oct 2007)
Government healthcare like members of Congress have. (Sep 2007)
Increase competition in the insurance and drug markets. (Aug 2007)
National Health Insurance Exchange for private coverage. (Aug 2007)
Health plan cuts typical family's premium by $2,500 a year. (Jun 2007)
Give people the choice to buy affordable health care. (Jun 2007)
National insurance pool & catastrophic insurance. (Apr 2007)
Employers are going to have to pay or play. (Mar 2007)
Need political will to accomplish universal coverage. (Mar 2007)
Healthcare system is broken without lifetime employment. (Oct 2006)
The market alone can't solve our health-care woes. (Oct 2006)
Focus on the affordability of a broad healthcare plan. (Jan 2006)
Crises happen in our lives and healthcare is necessary. (Oct 2004)
Believes health care is a right, not a privilege for the few. (Sep 2004)
Will expand health coverage & allow meds to be re-imported. (May 2004)
Ensure access to basic care. (Jul 1998)
No need to mandate coverage; just let people afford it. (Jul 2007)
Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
Increase funding for AIDS treatment & prevention. (Jan 2001)
More funding for Rx benefits, community health, CHIPs. (Jan 2001)
Improve services for people with autism & their families. (Apr 2007)
Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn. (Apr 2008)

Barack Obama on Homeland Security

No torture; no renditions; no operating out of fear. (Apr 2008)
Unacceptable to have veterans drive 250 miles to a hospital. (Feb 2008)
Pursue goal of a world without nuclear weapons. (Feb 2008)
Al Qaida is stronger now than in 2001 as Iraq distracted us. (Jan 2008)
Colleges must allow military recruiters for ROTC on campus. (Jan 2008)
Rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy. (Jan 2008)
FactCheck: Promised to repeal Patriot Act, then voted for it. (Jan 2008)
No presidential power for secret surveillance. (Dec 2007)
No holding US citizens as unlawful enemy combatants. (Dec 2007)
Congress decides what constitutes torture, not president. (Dec 2007)
No torture; defiance of FISA; no military commissions. (Dec 2007)
Restore habeas corpus to reach Muslims abroad. (Dec 2007)
Human rights and national security are complementary. (Nov 2007)
Don't allow our politics to be driven by fear of terrorism. (Nov 2007)
2006: Obama-Lugar bill restricted conventional weapons. (Oct 2007)
Judgment is as important as experience. (Oct 2007)
If attacked, first help victims then prevent further attacks. (Oct 2007)
America cannot sanction torture; no loopholes or exceptions. (Sep 2007)
Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell. (Aug 2007)
2005: Passed bill to reduce conventional weapon stockpiles. (Aug 2007)
We are no safer now than we were after 9/11. (Aug 2007)
Close Guantanamo and restore the right of habeas corpus. (Jun 2007)
Get first responders the healthcare and equipment they need. (Mar 2007)
Need to be both strong and smart on national defense. (Oct 2006)
Grow size of military to maintain rotation schedules. (Oct 2006)
Battling terrorism must go beyond belligerence vs. isolation. (Oct 2006)
Going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan is not Bush-style invasion. (Jan 2006)
Rebuild the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Jan 2006)
We are currently inspecting 3% of all incoming cargo. (Oct 2004)
Increase funding to decommission Russian nukes. (Jul 2004)
Give our soldiers the best equipment and training available. (Jul 2004)
Balance domestic intelligence reform with civil liberty risk. (Jul 2004)
National Service
Expand Peace Corps and AmeriCorps to 266,000 slots. (Feb 2008)
Put forward a national service program. (Jan 2008)
Give 18-year-old women opportunity to serve. (Dec 2007)
Register women for draft, but not for combat. (Jul 2007)
Veterans
Improve veterans' mental health treatment & PTSD benefits. (Feb 2008)
Address the deficiencies in the VA system. (Jun 2007)
The cost of the Iraq war should not shortchange VA benefits. (Jun 2007)
Make sure the outpatient facilities work for veterans. (Jun 2007)
Comprehensive plan for our veterans healthcare. (Mar 2007)
Voting Record
Support veterans via the Dignity for Wounded Warriors Act. (Aug 2007)
Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill for Iraq budget to be part of defense budget. (Jun 2006)
Restore habeas corpus for detainees in the War on Terror. (Jun 2007)
Establish global strategy to defeat al Qaeda. (Feb 2008)

Leftoverhard
09-29-2008, 02:03 PM
I'm going to link the rest of it. We're only through the "H's".

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

I hope this clears up that Obama has nothing but an empty promise of change. He has plenty of stances on the issues and all that's left is for us to agree or disagree.

MACH1
09-29-2008, 02:08 PM
With a big heaping bowl of.......

http://bp1.blogger.com/_5_eTza-1hvc/SGU1Twtbj1I/AAAAAAAAAMY/3HwT-rpCBeE/S1600-R/BFH_Obama_creamofnuttin.gif

Preacher
09-29-2008, 02:30 PM
Um.. None of those are THOUGHT OUT POLICY STATEMENTS with structure.

None of those are HOW he plans on achieving "change." They are simply populist statements which are easy to speak.

What I want to know, is HOW he plans on achieving those things.

One example. "Get first responders the equipment and health care they need."

How will he do that? WIll he violate states rights by directly funding first responders? Will he nationalize first responders? Will he turn the money over to the states to spend how they want and open it all up to waste and fraud? WIll he create a new bureaucracy to assess who gets what... and thus waste more money at the federal level?

And how does he pay for it? Will he cut military spending? Will he cut social programs? Will he have to raise my taxes just a bit more for it?

See... there is NOTHING that answers THOSE questions. It is just all empty words.

GBMelBlount
09-29-2008, 02:33 PM
Leftoverhard
Battles legislatively against the death penalty. (Jul 2004)

This is great. Obama is for stabbing a baby in the base of the skull, and sucking it's brain out, and killing it at birth if it's not wanted, yet, he wants to spare murderers and have us foot the bill. Wow. How do you feel about that leftover? Does that not sicken you?

Leftoverhard
09-29-2008, 02:34 PM
If you wait till tomorrow he will change his mind. :laughing:


Viva la flip flop indeed.

http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm

And to be fair...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/22/obama_and_mccain___flip_flop_flip_flop/

Those who live in glass houses...you know the rest.

It can be called flip-flopping and it can be called changing-your-stance. Spin it how you will. I tend to think that change is inevitable and no one, especially a politician who is constantly under scrutiny, is infallable.

MACH1
09-29-2008, 02:43 PM
Viva la flip flop indeed.

http://www.bi30.org/wordpress/flipflopper.htm

And to be fair...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/06/22/obama_and_mccain___flip_flop_flip_flop/

Those who live in glass houses...you know the rest.

It can be called flip-flopping and it can be called changing-your-stance. Spin it how you will. I tend to think that change is inevitable and no one, especially a politician who is constantly under scrutiny, is infallable.

Changing with circumstances is one thing but changing his stance because he thinks thats what the people want to hear is another. Obama's only telling you what he thinks you want to hear and not how it is. Does the term 'lies like a sheet' mean anything? :coffee:

Leftoverhard
09-29-2008, 02:46 PM
GBMel - I was asked *quite politely* to show Obama's stances on the issues. I did that. If you want to look at a particular issue, then look also at McCain's stance on it. Ask yourself, is it ok that McCain has been Pro-choice in the past?

I agree with Obama on quite a few of the issues. This election - like all elections before it - aren't black and white. I refuse to discuss my opinions on this board anymore about choice or the lack thereof. It's way too inflammatory and I'm not interested in going there.

Again, if you don't like the candidate, don't vote for him, simple as that.

Preacher
09-29-2008, 02:51 PM
GBMel - I was asked *quite politely* to show Obama's stances on the issues. I did that. If you want to look at a particular issue, then look also at McCain's stance on it. Ask yourself, is it ok that McCain has been Pro-choice in the past?

I agree with Obama on quite a few of the issues. This election - like all elections before it - aren't black and white. I refuse to discuss my opinions on this board anymore about choice or the lack thereof. It's way too inflammatory and I'm not interested in going there.

Again, if you don't like the candidate, don't vote for him, simple as that.

Kind of ironic... (and I know you weren't thinking of it this way... but still Ironic) this phrase: on this board anymore about choice or the lack thereof Just did push your opinion on abortion. Because those who do not believe it would call it "Life, or the destruction thereof" or some other phrase.


As I have said before, that is the entire problem. We have SO upped the rhetoric, that it becomes inherent in teh very way we speak.

Leftoverhard
09-29-2008, 02:55 PM
Changing with circumstances is one thing but changing his stance because he thinks thats what the people want to hear is another.

No, it's not. It's the same. These people are elected to do the will of the people.
Circumstance is: McCain selecting Palin to be his VP. He was sagging in the polls and he wanted the Hillary vote.
Doing what the people want to hear is: see "circumstance" or The-people wanted-McCain-to-liven-up-his-sagging-campaign.


Obama's only telling you what he thinks you want to hear and not how it is. Does the term 'lies like a sheet' mean anything? :coffee:

Examples please? I said please because I'm normally polite, not because I'm pandering to you.

Preacher
09-29-2008, 03:08 PM
No, it's not. It's the same. These people are elected to do the will of the people.
.

No. They are not. This is not a democracy. It is a Republic. We hire people every four years to go and REPRESENT us. Not to do our will. If we elected people to do our will, they would come back and hold straw votes every month or so.


And yes, there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in change of opinion over time vs. pandering. Over time means a person is engaging in critical thought. Pandering means he or she has no central conviction, and that is scary. Central conviction is what allows a person to understand and foreknow how the person will act or react in a given situation. Then, we hire that person through election to REPRESENT us BECAUSE we FOREKNOW the general way he or she will react based on THEIR CENTRAL CONVICTIONS.

It is the EXACT reason why I could not vote for Mitt Romney... because I felt his changes were pandering to the right, instead of slow, methodical, thought out movements to the right.

Leftoverhard
09-29-2008, 03:09 PM
Kind of ironic... (and I know you weren't thinking of it this way... but still Ironic) this phrase: Just did push your opinion on abortion. Because those who do not believe it would call it "Life, or the destruction thereof" or some other phrase.

As I have said before, that is the entire problem. We have SO upped the rhetoric, that it becomes inherent in teh very way we speak.

Well Preacher, you're right....my opinion isn't a secret but I have already made the mistake of arguing the inflammatory issue of Pro-life, Pro-choice on this board. As I said, it's not a black or white issue to me as I know it is to some (and many on this board).

I'm not afraid to debate or speak my mind but it's an absolute witchhunt here on this topic and apparently I'm the only witch.

I'm debating in a forum where I am clearly outnumbered. This is election season. We can call that rhetoric if you want.

HometownGal
09-29-2008, 03:09 PM
This is great. Obama is for stabbing a baby in the base of the skull, and sucking it's brain out, and killing it at birth if it's not wanted, yet, he wants to spare murderers and have us foot the bill. Wow. How do you feel about that leftover? Does that not sicken you?

:applaudit::applaudit::applaudit:

A-freakin-MEN Tom. :thumbsup: Pathetic, to say the least. :mad:

Thanks for the posts and info, Leftover, but I pretty much knew the "wheres" of Obama's platform - 95% of which I do not agree with or support (thus, my support of McCain). I want to know the "how's" - how does Obama expect to fund everything on his wish list? I think the answer is a no-brainer - he would put our taxes through the roof or cut funding to essential programs that benefit our seniors and veterans.

I still would like an answer to what you Demos/Libs haven't been able to answer.

What did Obama accomplish during his terms as a State Senator and 3 years and almost 9 months in the United States Senate which would qualify him to hold the highest office in the land? What bills has he introduced/had passed in either (or both) governmental forums that have had any benefit?

Preacher
09-29-2008, 03:15 PM
Well Preacher, you're right....my opinion isn't a secret but I have already made the mistake of arguing the inflammatory issue of Pro-life, Pro-choice on this board. As I said, it's not a black or white issue to me as I know it is to some (and many on this board).

I'm not afraid to debate or speak my mind but it's an absolute witchhunt here on this topic and apparently I'm the only witch.

I'm debating in a forum where I am clearly outnumbered. This is election season. We can call that rhetoric if you want.

Funny...

When I have been involved in these discussions, I have seen a number of different opinions. Mosca, Atlanta Dan, Yourself, amongst some others all seem to come at it from the other side. Martyrdom doesn't look good on you.

What I have also noticed... is in threads of sensitive topics such as race, abortion, etc. etc. which I have started... and asked for legitimate discussion, most people here have the ability to dial back the rhetoric and emotion and DISCUSS the issues. However, most (and I do this too.. purposefully at times) will dial up the rhetoric to match those who keep flinging rhetoric back. (quite funny, Tony H. does the same... which is why we have so much fun on the political threads...)

So please, lay low with the martyrdom routine.

HometownGal
09-29-2008, 03:21 PM
Circumstance is: McCain selecting Palin to be his VP. He was sagging in the polls and he wanted the Hillary vote.
Doing what the people want to hear is: see "circumstance" or The-people wanted-McCain-to-liven-up-his-sagging-campaign.


That is the biggest bunch of hogwash I've heard in a long time, Leftover. McCain was never "sagging" in the polls and even if he was, polls don't mean jack shit. Polls can be and are tweaked to benefit whichever party requests the poll. I know this first-hand from working within the Demo Party for all the years I did. Both parties do it and when all is said and done, the only numbers that matter are those at the close of the polls on election night. Remember - Hanoi John was trouncing GWB in the straw polls prior to and on election night and we all know how that story ended, don't we?

I think part of McCain's strategy in choosing Palin was to get the Hillary vote, as many of her supporters are disgruntled that she didn't win the nomination and could throw their vote to the McCain/Palin ticket. I have several relatives who are going that route. I also believe J-Mac wanted a young, vibrant. honest and tough as nails running mate with an impeccable record in government and that he got in Sarah Palin.

MACH1
09-29-2008, 03:43 PM
Examples please? I said please because I'm normally polite, not because I'm pandering to you.

I'll let him dig the hole.


I34LP3kf8bU

tony hipchest
09-29-2008, 03:54 PM
an impeccable record in government .:chuckle:

anyways i'd say polls mean more than yard signs. looks like biden dont need them in his home state.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/delaware/election_2008_delaware_presidential_election

In Delaware—home state to the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee—Barack Obama leads John McCain by a dozen points. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found Obama attracting 55% of the vote while McCain earns 43% (see crosstabs).

Not surprisingly, most Delaware voters—54%-- say Obama made the right decision when selecting Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate. Just 40% say that John McCain made the right choice when he selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be on the GOP ticket.

Nationally, the race between Obama and McCain remains close in both the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and the Electoral College projections.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls).

Obama is viewed favorably by 64% of Delaware voters, McCain by 53%.

Biden comes out on top in his home state by earning positive reviews from 68% of voters. Palin receives favorable ratings from 50%.

Fifty percent (50%) say that Biden is politically liberal while 30% view him as moderate. Seventy-eight percent (78%) see Palin as politically conservative.

Rasmussen Markets data currently gives Obama a 95.0% chance of winning Delaware this November.


senator since 72 and he now has the 6th longest tenure. if he was so uliked how come he hasnt been removed?

i know in NM, richardson didnt have campaign signs plastered everywhere. he didnt need em. with limited campaign dollars, you wanna allocate them to the spots where they will have the greatest impact.

HometownGal
09-29-2008, 04:43 PM
:chuckle:

anyways i'd say polls mean more than yard signs. looks like biden dont need them in his home state.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/delaware/election_2008_delaware_presidential_election



senator since 72 and he now has the 6th longest tenure. if he was so uliked how come he hasnt been removed?

i know in NM, richardson didnt have campaign signs plastered everywhere. he didnt need em. with limited campaign dollars, you wanna allocate them to the spots where they will have the greatest impact.

LMAO!!!!! :toofunny::toofunny::toofunny: Sorry O'Hipchest - no cigar here. :wink02:

Polls are altered to reflect whatever the requesting party wants. Demos and GOP'ers alike do this with every election. I saw it first hand during my long tenure in the Demo political circles.

Example: Telephone poll of 100 voters. 60 registered Demos, 30 registered GOP'ers, 10 undecided or third party voters. Demo candidate wins that poll 70% to 30%, as they include the undecideds/third party voters in their favorable results. Not rocket science.

As for Biden - I'm not buying what you are trying to sell, Bartony. :wink02: I never said that Delaware residents don't "like" Biden. Quite possibly, it isn't Biden they don't support. :flap:

Your poll results aren't all that favorable, considering that it is only a 12 point lead in a heavily blue state. Shame on the pollster. :chuckle:

revefsreleets
09-29-2008, 05:32 PM
"See here, this Pinto is souped up! And it's cheap...and it gets great gas mileage...now what am I gonna have to do to get you into this BEAUTIFUL '72 PInto today?"

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2243/2199161789_4f08028ebf.jpg?v=0

I don't want a Pinto. I want a sensible car. Something I know will be reliable. Something that won't blow up when rear ended. Something that starts when I turn the key...something that was good then AND now...something I know and can trust. McCain is no Bentley (Washington, Lincoln) but he's a Cadillac at least. I'm voting for the Caddy and you guys can keep your Pinto. I'm not buying...

Preacher
09-29-2008, 06:54 PM
Pinto's for sale?

How about this one

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1174/1433718754_65abcb9493.jpg?v=0

tony hipchest
09-29-2008, 06:57 PM
Polls are altered to reflect whatever the requesting party wants. Demos and GOP'ers alike do this with every election. I saw it first hand during my long tenure in the Demo political circles.

Example: Telephone poll of 100 voters. 60 registered Demos, 30 registered GOP'ers, 10 undecided or third party voters. Demo candidate wins that poll 70% to 30%, as they include the undecideds/third party voters in their favorable results. Not rocket science.
:are you kidding? perhaps all the pollsters should go out counting yard signs then instead of relying on proven measures to guage and predict opinions. :rofl:

how do you think tv ratings ar calculated?

i never knew these pollsters were so backhanded and sinister...

im sure all the rublickans would be touting polls in delaware if it were draped in red instead counting yard signs, though.

anyways the polls i linked are a bit more randon than the shennanigans you suggest. if i listened to what youre saying, i'd have to believe all the red states arent really red, and the blue states arent really blue.

perhaps mccain captures, cali and ny this year. :chuckle:

HometownGal
09-29-2008, 07:30 PM
are you kidding? perhaps all the pollsters should go out counting yard signs then instead of relying on proven measures to guage and predict opinions. :rofl:

how do you think tv ratings ar calculated?

i never knew these pollsters were so backhanded and sinister...

im sure all the rublickans would be touting polls in delaware if it were draped in red instead counting yard signs, though.

anyways the polls i linked are a bit more randon than the shennanigans you suggest. if i listened to what youre saying, i'd have to believe all the red states arent really red, and the blue states arent really blue.

perhaps mccain captures, cali and ny this year. :chuckle:

No - I'm not kidding. Not in the least. What I posted is accurate - been there, done that.

Please don't put words in my mouth, Tony. I never said or even implied that pollsters are "backhanded" and "sinister". They put on the spin (not better than you, but just sayin' :wink02:)and do what is asked of them by both parties at any given time. There is nothing underhanded with regard to what they do, but it is misleading. However, it is their bread and butter.

I'm sorry you have your blue blinders on, Tony, and find it amusing to take your veiled shots at me, but I find it very odd indeed that there were no Obama/Biden signs anywhere in Delaware, which is Biden's backyard, only 7 weeks before the election. I would find it just as strange if there was the same lack of support shown in Arizona and Alaska for McCain/Palin. I also find it very strange that in heavily Democratic Pittsburgh, there seems to be more McCain/Palin signs than Obama/Biden signs. In the 2004 election, everywhere I went in Pittsburgh, there were Kerry/Edwards signs. Chuckle and spin all you want - fact is fact and I'm not trying to mimic you by pulling any of this out of my ass. :flap::wink02:

Rasmussen is somewhat accurate but "realclearpolitics.com"? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Leftoverhard
09-30-2008, 09:41 AM
I mean, I get it. The Dems are forced to sell a used and rusted out 72 Pinto, so they are putting their best foot forward. "You know, it gets pretty good gas mileage, and, well, Hell, it's cheap! The expoding gas tank? Nah, that only a happened a few times. Trust me, this baby is a real peach!"



Used and rusted old exploding car...as far as metaphors go, that one doesn't really work for your purposes, sorry. :noidea:

Does this mean you're voting for Nader?

No. They are not. This is not a democracy. It is a Republic.

Way to be totally literal. Yes, this is a republic but over time it has also become a democracy as the word has changed it's meaning. Not a true democracy, no but the President and our political leaders are held accountable to the People. And yes, those guys are elected to do the will of the people. It has nothing to do with straw polls.
So, I'm confused, you're defending the notion that the people who represent us can do whatever the hell they want after they're elected? You trust them that much? I don't get it. I don't trust any of these people as far as I can throw them. I consider it my patriotic duty to make sure I don't. If we all just trusted these Lions, we would all be Lambs and they call that a dictatorship or facism.

revefsreleets
09-30-2008, 09:46 AM
I mean your candidate is a piece of junk, and you are trying your best to shine it up and sell it.

Seriously, would anyone , knowing what we know now, have really picked this guy out of all the available Democrats to run? He's not a real presidential candidate, he's just not...but you're stuck with him, so you can't admit that.

Leftoverhard
09-30-2008, 11:14 AM
Thanks for the posts and info, Leftover, but I pretty much knew the "wheres" of Obama's platform - 95% of which I do not agree with or support (thus, my support of McCain). I want to know the "how's" - how does Obama expect to fund everything on his wish list? I think the answer is a no-brainer - he would put our taxes through the roof or cut funding to essential programs that benefit our seniors and veterans.

I still would like an answer to what you Demos/Libs haven't been able to answer.

What did Obama accomplish during his terms as a State Senator and 3 years and almost 9 months in the United States Senate which would qualify him to hold the highest office in the land? What bills has he introduced/had passed in either (or both) governmental forums that have had any benefit?

As far as paying for things we need in this country, taxes are how we do it. No, you say? Ah, I almost forgot, The Great Republican Lie "We will cut taxes and shrink government!" Really?!
Can you really call it "cutting taxes" when you borrow trillions to cover budget shortages? The citizens pay higher interest rates on credit card bills, mortgage payments etc. because the rebublican government borrows money by floating bonds - the more bonds we/it sells, the higher the interest rate payed out to make bonds look more attractive. Sounds like a freaking trip to the mall with Daddy's credit card to me. At least The Democrats don't lie about it. "We use tax money to make quality of life better." Simple, straight up truth.
Republicans Shrinking Government? I wish. This past president's idea of shrinking government is nothing less than scary. A military police state without any government regulations to protect our food, water, air etc. I feel safe already. And then McCain says he is going to put a freeze on federal programs. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
It's like being in on of those dreams where you run and run but get nowhere. These guys put out fires while more fires start instead of trying to invent a bigger extinguisher.

For the other stuff - go to the Library Of Congress website and browse if you want to know the 130 bills that Obama has sponsored and the 38 bills McCain has sponsored since the beginning of 2007. It's very user-friendly and interesting. Check it out.

Here's the link http://thomas.loc.gov/

Just go to "select a senator" and pick Obama. Try McCain too. Like I said, interesting. Looks at who co-sponsors these bills.

Leftoverhard
09-30-2008, 11:23 AM
I mean your candidate is a piece of junk, and you are trying your best to shine it up and sell it.

Seriously, would anyone , knowing what we know now, have really picked this guy out of all the available Democrats to run? He's not a real presidential candidate, he's just not...but you're stuck with him, so you can't admit that.

I'm very excited about him as I know lots of other people are. I voted for him in the caucus and like I've said before, he's been someone who's public career I've been following for years.
As far as needing to shine something rusty up, McCain tried that with his shiny vp* choice and she's starting to go south in a hurry. So, if you want to equate people with cars, I'd say you've got yourself a couple of Hummers.

revefsreleets
09-30-2008, 11:26 AM
I just checked that out...thanks.

LOT'S of expensive projects in those 130 bills. Wonder how all that kind of stuff gets paid for?

You've been following his career? Really? His CAREER? He's been a senator for a few years...that's IT. And a mediocre one at that.

Palin doesn't work on me...nice try. I'm not a big fan of her politics.

stlrtruck
09-30-2008, 11:27 AM
how do you think tv ratings ar calculated?


Funny you should mention that here but let me inform you that viewing numbers you read/hear about are also manipulated. Very much so that you'd probably be on your arse if you actually saw the manipulation of numbers that happens at Nielsen.

Now I know you might ask yourself - how do you know stlrtruck? Well, because I work there.

RunWillieRun
10-01-2008, 03:33 PM
I'm very excited about him as I know lots of other people are. I voted for him in the caucus and like I've said before, he's been someone who's public career I've been following for years.
As far as needing to shine something rusty up, McCain tried that with his shiny vp* choice and she's starting to go south in a hurry. So, if you want to equate people with cars, I'd say you've got yourself a couple of Hummers.


So were you following him when he was prosecuting banks and other lending institutions for NOT issuing ENOUGH subprime loans?

I know I sure am excited about his "truth squads" in Missouri trying to stomp out that pesky First Amendment right of free speech.

Preacher
10-01-2008, 03:50 PM
As far as paying for things we need in this country, taxes are how we do it. No, you say? Ah, I almost forgot, The Great Republican Lie "We will cut taxes and shrink government!" Really?!
Can you really call it "cutting taxes" when you borrow trillions to cover budget shortages? The citizens pay higher interest rates on credit card bills, mortgage payments etc. because the rebublican government borrows money by floating bonds - the more bonds we/it sells, the higher the interest rate payed out to make bonds look more attractive. Sounds like a freaking trip to the mall with Daddy's credit card to me. At least The Democrats don't lie about it. "We use tax money to make quality of life better." Simple, straight up truth.
Republicans Shrinking Government? I wish. This past president's idea of shrinking government is nothing less than scary. A military police state without any government regulations to protect our food, water, air etc. I feel safe already. And then McCain says he is going to put a freeze on federal programs. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
It's like being in on of those dreams where you run and run but get nowhere. These guys put out fires while more fires start instead of trying to invent a bigger extinguisher.

For the other stuff - go to the Library Of Congress website and browse if you want to know the 130 bills that Obama has sponsored and the 38 bills McCain has sponsored since the beginning of 2007. It's very user-friendly and interesting. Check it out.

Here's the link http://thomas.loc.gov/

Just go to "select a senator" and pick Obama. Try McCain too. Like I said, interesting. Looks at who co-sponsors these bills.


You should work for the DNC. That was such a masterful interweaving of half-truths and rhetoric... :applaudit:

:coffee:

revefsreleets
10-01-2008, 03:56 PM
Did you READ those bills Preach? The "Bridge to nowhere" pales against all that pork. Some of the things were truly laughable ridiculous wastes of money.

Someone needs to point out that there is a vast difference between QUALITY bills and the QUANTITY of bills a legislator sponsors.

Preacher
10-01-2008, 03:59 PM
Did you READ those bills Preach? The "Bridge to nowhere" pales against all that pork. Some of the things were truly laughable ridiculous wastes of money.

Someone needs to point out that there is a vast difference between QUALITY bills and the QUANTITY of bills a legislator sponsors.

Personally...

I think that each state GOVERNOR should have to go on NATIONAL TV for 10 minutes (a two hour show) and pitch what he wants money for.

Then it gets debated and voted on by congress... with votes tallied and ran in all the newspapers.

Let's see how much pork gets spent THEN...

X-Terminator
10-01-2008, 05:53 PM
As far as paying for things we need in this country, taxes are how we do it.

Yes, that's right. I don't think anyone disputes that. So the government should spend the money wisely, and not ask for one more cent from you or me until they do. They haven't done it, and likely won't be doing it any time soon, so I will never support another tax increase to give them more money to flush down the toilet.

No, you say? Ah, I almost forgot, The Great Republican Lie "We will cut taxes and shrink government!" Really?!
Can you really call it "cutting taxes" when you borrow trillions to cover budget shortages? The citizens pay higher interest rates on credit card bills, mortgage payments etc. because the rebublican government borrows money by floating bonds - the more bonds we/it sells, the higher the interest rate payed out to make bonds look more attractive. Sounds like a freaking trip to the mall with Daddy's credit card to me.

I can't dispute that. Republicans and fiscal conservatives such as myself believe in smaller government, lower taxes and responsible government spending. Unfortunately, the last 8 years under this administration's "borrow and spend" policies have shot that to hell. You can't cut taxes without cutting spending, otherwise you're left with the huge deficits we are currently facing. It's as simple as that.

At least The Democrats don't lie about it. "We use tax money to make quality of life better." Simple, straight up truth.

Again, that would be fine if they spent the money wisely. They don't. Their only solution if something fails is to raise taxes and spend more. I'm sorry, but I can't support that. Show me that a program can be run within a reasonable budget, and maybe...MAYBE...I'd be willing to pay a little more. It's no different than some company offering lousy service, and then charge their customers more for the same lousy service. In that case, the customers would simply take their business elsewhere, even if it meant paying more, because people WILL pay for quality service. Why do you think so many Republicans support privatization of services? (For the record, I do not agree with this - I don't know if I'd trust something like Social Security and Medicare being pretty much exclusively run by the private sector.) Many people have always said that if the government was a business, they'd be bankrupt within a week, and they're right.

Republicans Shrinking Government? I wish. This past president's idea of shrinking government is nothing less than scary.

I can't really argue this point. The government most certainly has NOT gotten smaller over the past 8 years. Now granted, nobody anticipated a terrorist attack on our soil, but that doesn't change the fact that the government has expanded.

A military police state without any government regulations to protect our food, water, air etc. I feel safe already.

Nobody, least of all conservatives, believes America should be a military police state. That's something straight off of MoveOn.org or some loony government conspiracy theory site - complete nonsense. And I don't believe Republicans want dirty water, dirty air or unsafe food - again, complete nonsense. They may support relaxing some regulations in order for some businesses to operate more efficiently, but that doesn't mean they want to get rid of them. If you want to be taken seriously, don't channel douchebags like Michael Moore. I'd like to believe you're better than that.

And then McCain says he is going to put a freeze on federal programs. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Elaborate, please.

Preacher
10-01-2008, 05:58 PM
Elaborate, please.

He probably doesn't remember the context of that statement by McCain.

X-Terminator
10-01-2008, 06:03 PM
He probably doesn't remember the context of that statement by McCain.

Well then you tell me what the context was. I'm not a politics wonk like some people are - I haven't been paying attention to most of this stuff because it's the same old tired rhetoric.

Preacher
10-01-2008, 06:16 PM
Well then you tell me what the context was. I'm not a politics wonk like some people are - I haven't been paying attention to most of this stuff because it's the same old tired rhetoric.

Sure,

In the debate last week, the moderator asked what the current financial crisis would do to their fiscal programs if they became president. At first, both McCain and Obama skated around the question. then the moderator (and I give him props for this) nailed them again... asking, "you won't change ONE thing in the midst of this crisis?" (my words.. but that was the intent).

McCain then said that he would put a freeze on federal spending limits except for the military and one or two specific things until this crisis is over.

X-Terminator
10-01-2008, 06:26 PM
Sure,

In the debate last week, the moderator asked what the current financial crisis would do to their fiscal programs if they became president. At first, both McCain and Obama skated around the question. then the moderator (and I give him props for this) nailed them again... asking, "you won't change ONE thing in the midst of this crisis?" (my words.. but that was the intent).

McCain then said that he would put a freeze on federal spending limits except for the military and one or two specific things until this crisis is over.

Thanks.

Where "freezing federal PROGRAMS" came out of that, I have no idea. Sounds to me like McCain is saying that he wants to cap overall government spending with some exceptions during the crisis - a little "belt-tightening," if you will. That's not the same thing. And besides, I thought everyone wanted the government to exercise fiscal restraint? :noidea:

Preacher
10-01-2008, 06:32 PM
Thanks.

Where "freezing federal PROGRAMS" came out of that, I have no idea. Sounds to me like McCain is saying that he wants to cap overall government spending with some exceptions during the crisis - a little "belt-tightening," if you will. That's not the same thing. And besides, I thought everyone wanted the government to exercise fiscal restraint? :noidea:
Excuse me...

Limits wasn't what he used. It was federal spending... period. Which means he wouldn't increase the budget at all next year... except for the military if necessary.

X-Terminator
10-02-2008, 07:10 AM
Excuse me...

Limits wasn't what he used. It was federal spending... period. Which means he wouldn't increase the budget at all next year... except for the military if necessary.

Right, that's what I was saying - no increases (a cap) in spending next year except in certain cases. If the rest of us average Joes have to live on a budget during trying times, then the government should too.