Last debate

[Bet51987]

John McCain looked like an arrogant fool, talked like an arrogant fool, and came across as an arrogant fool. He spent most of his alloted time attacking Obama.

Obama not only looked presidential, talked presidential, and acted presidential but looks like he could actually fix things and everything he said made sense. God, I can't wait to vote.

Bee

[flip]

Was McCain arrogantly speaking lies or the truth? After watching I definitely felt that McCain would make a much stronger leader than Obama. McCain came across as a much more capable and tougher negotiator.

[Gooberman]

One of the nice things about Presidential debates; is you can read all of the reviews, outcomes, and opinions of the show that you want, and its still not spoiled for you. If only movies worked that way...

Hope to watch it on YouTube later tonight.

[Krom]

I think McCain did a good job of being aggressive without looking desperate. Obama suddenly caught a case of the conservative where he could have kicked McCain and his campaign around and clenched it.

Obama shouldn't be satisfied just by maintaining a lead, he should crush his opponent if he can, it would be more \"presidential\". Although debates are probably easier for the candidates that are losing in the polls because they have little to lose and everything to gain by being aggressive even if it could backfire. I don't want a candidate that passes up obvious avenues of advancement just because he is already ahead.

I like a candidate that can keep their cool at all times, but I also want a candidate that isn't just going to let something slide when someone brushes them the wrong way. You can choose to make a point and then let it sink in, or you can make a point and then drive it home. I would have been more happy with Obama's performance if he had hammered in some more shots at McCain with calm confidence and eloquence like we would want from a president. Keep your shots above the belt, but don't slack off just because the opponent is out of rhythm.

[Xamindar]

I don't like how they blame each other for things, even the same thing. Which one is lying? One or both have to be. McCain points to Obama and blams him, then Obama points back to McCain and then tries to say he isn't pointing fingers. GAH!

I honesty like what Obama has been \"saying\" he will do more than McCain, but when he contradicts himself in the SAME SENTENCE, what should I start thinking?

[AlphaDoG]

Um, um, er, um, I, um, um, would make a great, um, er, um President.

[snoopy]

I'll have to watch it. I was too busy watching the Phillies clinch the pennant.

[CDN_Merlin]

I saw clips on the National News here and I have to say I'm not impressed with McCain. Obama just looked more professional.

[CUDA]

Bee, there's an old saying.
how do you tell if a politician is lying to you?

he opens his mouth.

they all lie don't be fooled to thinking otherwise

Presidential debates mean little to nothing and usually only influence people that don't pay attention to politics.

don't be fooled by the eloquence of the speaker. there have been many \"leaders\" through out history political and religious that have been great speakers and terrible men. many equate them with a used car salesman, they will promise you the world just to get the sale.

make your choice on 2 main things.

1.his position on the issues. you look at his voting record. not the crap that comes out of his mouth. please refer to my first sentence.

2. his character. what kind of man is he.

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.

Japanese Proverb

make your decision logically not emotionally

[dissent]

I honesty like what Obama has been "saying" he will do more than McCain, but when he contradicts himself in the SAME SENTENCE, what should I start thinking?

As the saying goes, talk is cheap .... unless you're talking to a lawyer

Here's an issue I have with Obamaspeak -

Barack Obama on taxes and the economy –

(from http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/ )

Jumpstart the Economy

Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:
Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.

The Dems have already tried to do this; and it’s hard to find a better analysis than that found on Robert Rapier’s blog

"This is a start. It will help lower prices. It will help working families make ends meet," Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a vain effort to keep the bill alive. "It is one small step on a long and uphill road to a cleaner, more affordable energy future." The bill would have ended tax breaks for big oil companies, imposed a new tax on windfall profits and fought price manipulation by OPEC, Reid said.

Of course ole Harry knows a thing or two about windfall profits. But does he really believe that this will lower prices? Why does he think things will be different this time than last time?

Remember the last time?? That last link (see Rapier's article for the links) is a little analysis for you younger folk. Do take the time to read it in detail, won’t you? It concludes

CRS also found the windfall profits tax had the effect of decreasing domestic production by 3 percent to 6 percent, thereby increasing American dependence on foreign oil sources by 8 percent to 16 percent. A side effect was declining, not increasing, tax collections. Figure 1 clearly shows that while the tax raised considerable revenue in the initial years following its enactment, those revenues declined to almost nothing as the domestic industry collapsed.

The 1980 windfall profits tax was also found to be highly burdensome for the industry to comply with and for the Internal Revenue Service to administer, especially in years when no revenue was raised. It seems unlikely that a new tax could be designed in a less burdensome fashion. Tax Foundation economists estimate that U.S. companies currently spend nearly $150 billion annually to comply with the federal income tax alone. Enacting a new windfall profits tax would add an additional layer of complexity to the federal tax system.

The past year has clearly been a good year for oil companies. However, these large profits should be viewed in proper perspective, given the staggering amount of tax the industry currently pays and remits to governments at the federal, state, and local levels. As the experience of the past quarter-century has shown, governments have actually “profited” more from the oil industry than the industry has earned for its shareholders.

(Emphases mine)

So the gist is, that Obama promises voters a government check, but in fact he has no guarantee at all that he can deliver it, and even if he could, the cure will end up being worse than the disease. Capital will leave the oil markets because their return there is reduced. As investment dries up, so will production; and actual tax revenues; and investment in new infrastructure; and jobs as the industry has to struggle under this additional drag on their earnings.

It’s really simple – when you tax something, you get less of it.

RALEIGH, North Carolina (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Monday he would impose a windfall profits tax on U.S. oil companies as he sought political gain from Americans' pain over high gasoline prices.

"I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said.

Doesn't ExxonMobil already pay taxes on their "windfall profits?" Something like $30 billion last year? That windfall belongs to the government, though. I wonder if it is unconscionably excessive?

There’s a word for this: PANDER.

If Obama was really the “new politician”, he would have stood up to the other clowns in his party that want to foist this failure on us once again. But he is as clueless (and pander-mongering) as Illinois’s other senator, Dick Durbin, on this issue.

In retrospect, I’m of mixed feelings on this – if Obama wins, then he’ll be gone from Illinois, and we’ll have a new senator (maybe good), but then he’ll be president, and he’ll push cockamamie schemes like this one (probably bad). If Obama loses, he’ll come back as Illinois’s senator (sigh).

I can’t win either way. So I guess I have to decide which way I lose less.

[CUDA]

Comon dissent, you know better than to add facts into a political race

[woodchip]

As to the debate, this sums up Obama's stance:

What, Me Worry?

[Bet51987]

Assuming what everyone says is true... that all politicians lie during debates... then all I have left is their past voting record and their on-screen style. I've already checked the voting records of each candidate on the issues that matter most to me and Obama is very much like me by an 86% margin over John McCain.

Now comes style. I want to see a president that can represent us in a dignified manner, like a person who is speaking on behalf of the American people, is supposed to do. Obama was both dignified and eloquent and although I found McCain slightly more emotional, which I like, I didn't care for his eye rolling and interuptions as Obama was speaking. He showed the same arrogance in the first two debates and I believe he will carry that with him when he speaks to foreign leaders.

With that, the Supreme court issue, the abortion issue, and Sarah Palin's creationist views, it was easy to decide that I didn't want America to continue it's eight year backward decline from the modern world.

Dissent... This may help you decide.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00950.html

Bee

[Duper]

Now comes style. I want to see a president that can represent us in a dignified manner, like a person who is speaking on behalf of the American people, is supposed to do.

This is really a poor choice to select a national leader by. the French aristocracy was the epitome of this and also one of the most corrupt.

style is only that. Neither one of these men are natural leaders. either will do an "OK" job, but we didn't the person we needed for this time.

[Hostile]

So this is how socialism and the loss of personal liberties takes over in our country, to the sounds of applause.......

Also, when did being pretty or polished become a prequisite for being President because most of them haven't been....?

[woodchip]

Bee, I suggest when you go to buy a used car, you take along someone less naive.

[Foil]

Guys, chill. Read her posts, she never said that those apparent personality traits were the basis of her choice. She only said that they affirm her already-researched choice.

Remember months ago, before the primaries, she was posting the results of her research into the candidate's voting records and stances on the issues. I agree that she's making too much of perceived attitudes (Bet, just be aware that your perceptions are affected by your previously-set views), but at least she's already done her homework on the issues which are important to her.

-----------------

That said, I don't pay much attention to the debates or even interviews anymore. I did in the past two presidential elections, and have come to the conclusion that interviews and debates are nearly useless for making informed decisions. The candidates are posturing, with coached attitudes and semi-scripted responses.

[Spidey]

Bett, I could have swore you were pro life, am I wrong?

[Will Robinson]

Obama is very very liberal. If he is President with an all Democrat congress (filibuster proof super majority) he will be able to change things much deeper and faster than any President in recent history. If you worry about a President Palin one day trying to get Supreme court appointees past congress just think for a minute about the other side of the coin...
Obama, unrestrained by congress will be stacking the courts soon with the kind of judges that can flush our democracy down the toilet! It won't be his intention but if track records mean anything just look at the sections of our country that have been run by liberals with good intentions!

I think I read recently that Chicago/Cook County Illinois, Obama's district, is run by a democrat mayor, democrat congressmen, democrat senators...pretty much pure democrat and has been for a while.
They recently had more murders in a 6 month period than we had soldiers dying in Iraq during the same time, higher tax rates than any place in America, higher unemployment etc. etc.
I think that community has been about as organized in the liberal mold as it can before it crumbles to dust.

On a timeline of all known civilization the American experiment is really a very short blip and it's end could come rushing up to meet some of you in your lifetime. I don't have much faith that the Liberal experiment is going to be a very nice place to live based on their history when they've actually had free reign.
I hope I'm wrong though because I think we're about to find out.....

[Bet51987]

@Will Robinson. I do understand what you're saying but I have no choice. I see McCain like Bush who has caused my generation to go bankrupt even before we reach middle age. I also don't like his stance on Nuclear Power and a host of other things that I've checked on. And, my God, if anything happens to McCain we would be stuck with Sarah Palin. I have to take my chances and I think Obama will do a good job.

@Spidey. I was always pro-life with limits. Those limits were unprovoked rape or incest where I would allow the termination of a cell (morning after pill) to stop a pregnancy. But, since some here would not offer any compromise whatsoever, and would literally FORCE their own daughters to carry that child to term, I altered my stance. I admit I have a big problem with it but I'm pro-choice now and vote for the pro-choice candidate.

@Woodchip. I don't particularly like you so you know where you can go... I edited out the rest of my reply to you.

Bettina

[Spidey]

I think I read recently that Chicago/Cook County Illinois, Obama's district, is run by a democrat mayor, democrat congressmen, democrat senators...pretty much pure democrat and has been for a while.
They recently had more murders in a 6 month period than we had soldiers dying in Iraq during the same time, higher tax rates than any place in America, higher unemployment etc. etc.
I think that community has been about as organized in the liberal mold as it can before it crumbles to dust.

To expand on that, just look at Washington DC. The microcosm of liberal idealism…

Late edit, sorry…

Bett…so you have changed your personal stance on abortion, because of what some dumb politicans think…pity.

[Bet51987]

Bett…so you have changed your personal stance on abortion, because of what some dumb politicans think…pity.

Not just politicans but the non-compromising voters who vote them in based on just that reason. Please believe me when I say it bothers me but I can't find a way to protect a young rape victim from an unwanted and unprovoked pregnancy. If they would allow me to administer a pill to stop the cell from developing I would gladly change back but I don't see it happening.

Bee

[Will Robinson]

@Will Robinson. I do understand what you're saying but I have no choice. I see McCain like Bush who has caused my generation to go bankrupt even before we reach middle age.....

I'm not telling you to switch your choice but there are two points you raised you should re-think a little.

1- You do have a choice, try voting for someone other than one of the two choices our political hydra tries so hard to keep us all picking between....

2- If you are saying McCain and Bush have caused us to go bankrupt because of the current financial meltdown you are leaving out the most guilty party.
If you say that due to overall government spending on general policy then you are jumping from the frying pan into the fire when you choose Obama because his spending will dwarf the last administrations...

[Gekko71]

For the first time in living memory, these debates have been screened live in Australia (sign of the times I guess).

I think Will has a point. I was purturbed by Obama's intention to 'spend his way into office' and to deliver tax cuts to the middle class at the same time. Given the financial mess the world is in, I see these types of economic policy decision as disturbingly populist. This latest debate had me agreeing with McCain for the first time. I can see now why the Republican party pre-selected him.

[Praetorian]

These political threads are some scarey things to read. Sniff Sniff, I smell a little history repeating itself. Who are the old farts that remember the 70's and how we ended up with Carter.

America was still taking a beating from the left for Vietnam as the country now had the image of looking weak and our allies wondering if we will be there for them. Watergate was still fresh on the talking points for Republican bashing. 74 was a bad year for inflation. People wanted Change, real Change. Well, the change Carter said we were getting and what we got were not the same.

If you think interest is high now, I can remember the 18 percent mortgage with President Carter as inflation increasing every year as well the double digit inflation for three years and this lovely thing we called gas rationing. Those were the good ole days of an hour or so in line only to have them run out. Let us not forget the unemployment during that time which brought about this thing they called the misery index.

Things do not really go out of style. If you live long enough you will see the old renewed, whether it be clothes, products or politicians promises. There will always be the young, ate up hard charger that will buy what is being sold.

I remember the promises just a little while back for the house elections the Democrats made that got them the seats they wanted. One was, they were going to bring home the troops from Iraq. NOT

The election is not just about these two candidates as there is always a bigger picture. One big picture question might be: What is the effect on our economy for pulling out of Iraq as we did in Vietnam? Do the domino effect starting with the middle east countries, both allies and non-allies then work your way around to the other major countries of the world we do business with or are in competiton with.

I was there for the first gulf war and we were pissed that we were not going in to get Saddam out. We figured we would be back in about five years for him, but it took a little longer. I have also been treated at Veterans Hospitals which is a form of government heatlh care, something you people do not want. It is always fun when they thank you for your service then do nothing different to treat the condition. A good one is when it takes a year to see a specialist and get a cancellation notice a week before the appointment with no rescedule or explanation. Doctors, what the hell are they? I can give you the names of all the nurse practioners I have had. Hillary Care......ewwwwwww

Wow, and now we start finding out it was during the Clinton years the towers first got tagged, North Korea got its nuclear stuff, and more recently I get to hear about the laxing of regulations that led to our current bank busts.

We could certainly use better candidates, but sometimes you have to go with the lessor of two evils.

[woodchip]

. @Spidey. I was always pro-life with limits. Those limits were unprovoked rape or incest where I would allow the termination of a cell (morning after pill) to stop a pregnancy. But, since some here would not offer any compromise whatsoever, and would literally FORCE their own daughters to carry that child to term, I altered my stance. I admit I have a big problem with it but I'm pro-choice now and vote for the pro-choice candidate.

Yet you have no problem with Obama supporting infancide. A young woman was on TV, and the only reason she was alive was the abortion clinic doctor was not in the clinic when she was birthed and the personal present were not licensed to stick a needle in her brain. So ya, vote for people who approve that.

@Woodchip. I don't particularly like you so you know where you can go... I edited out the rest of my reply to you.

Bet I suggest you keep your emotional outburst to the PM's lest you wind up appearing like the guy Madonna ridiculed on stage. If you have problems with people for the names they called you then limit your vitriol to them specifically and not classify a whole group of people to eternal damnation. Got a problem...take it to .com.

[TechPro]

These political threads are some scarey things to read. Sniff Sniff, I smell a little history repeating itself. Who are the old farts that remember the 70's and how we ended up with Carter.

I remember how we ended up with Carter. There was a LOT of desire for "change" in how things are done, to decrease Government bloat, to fix/reform Tax, to cut waste, to lower prices, blah blah. It all is eerily familiar.

Carter was an extremely intelligent person with loads of potential ... but had to learn most of what to do/be as a President (which resulted from a lot of mistakes and lessons learned on the job by trial and error) and a LOT of the policies geared towards making changes had unplanned results that really hurt the US for decades to come (and we still deal with some of the effects).

I also remember that he was a lot of talk about change but when it came to actually making change happen ... Congress is that pin that either makes the change happen or shuts it down. Which is what has happened with EVERY Presidency. Unless Congress goes along with the changes the President wants to make, there is actually not a lot the President can make happen.

History has also shown us that when Congress is majority controlled by the same party that the President is part of ... Two things happen. 1) A lot of bad political actions favoring that party (or party members) get pushed through "because they can", or 2) A lot of good happens because the opposing party cannot stop it over politcal lines. Unless I'm mistaken, both happened during Reagan's time.

At this point, you might be able to guess who I'm leaning towards.

[Bet51987]

Bet I suggest you keep your emotional outburst to the PM's lest you wind up appearing like the guy Madonna ridiculed on stage. If you have problems with people for the names they called you then limit your vitriol to them specifically and not classify a whole group of people to eternal damnation. Got a problem...take it to .com.

I have no problem with those at .com who call me names. I could care less. What I do care about is you taking things I say here...out of context... and post it at .com knowing I don't like the place and won't go there. You do that to make a forum contribution at my expense.

So, again, I really don't like or respect you in any way.

Bettina

[Bet51987]

dbl post

[Foil]

Bettina, Woodchip,

IMHO, it would behoove you both to resolve this privately. Woody, you were clearly wrong to attack Bet on .com the way you did. Bet, you're just as wrong in the way you retaliated here.

Take it to PMs if you have to; quit dragging the personal stuff into this thread, so we can get back on topic, alright?

(just noticed the edits, thank you)

[Canuck]

Bettina... who cares who says what in a forum you don't visit. Care what you think is right for you and works for you. Listen to opinions and advice, but you don't have to take it all or any of it. Be careful not to throw advice out with the \"bathwater\" to say... I like to listen to people and talk to anyone of all ages. A four year old can offer up a wisdom in life to share along with the 104 year old people.

And in the subject of arguing if the opponent proves too stupid and ugly to deal with then I take Big Bobby Clobber's advice, \"Never argue with stupid or ugly people... they have nothing to lose!\".

P.S.
And I think more than two parties are needed for America like we have in Canada

My 2¢

Edit: ROFL the Work Less Party !

[Spidey]

We have plenty of parties here in America, but people are convinced we have a “two party system”.

[Canuck]

It essentially is, here we have 4 major players not two. PC, Liberal, NDP, and the BQ.

[Will Robinson]

We have plenty of parties here in America, but people are convinced we have a “two party system”.

Well the Republican National Committee and the Democrat National Committee got to tell us Ralph Nader can't appear in the presidential debate even though he had millions of supporters and often the RNC and DNC dictate who can get on the ballot in each state by virtue of only Democrats or Republicans are in charge of individual states governments....

So yea, I'm convinced. Any third party is relatively crippled, they may exist on paper but for all intents and purposes they are outsiders without a chance!

[Spidey]

Well, if we let them get away with that…then who do we have to blame?

[Bet51987]

Bettina... who cares who says what in a forum you don't visit. Care what you think is right for you and works for you. Listen to opinions and advice, but you don't have to take it all or any of it. Be careful not to throw advice out with the "bathwater" to say... I like to listen to people and talk to anyone of all ages. A four year old can offer up a wisdom in life to share along with the 104 year old people.

And in the subject of arguing if the opponent proves too stupid and ugly to deal with then I take Big Bobby Clobber's advice, "Never argue with stupid or ugly people... they have nothing to lose!".

P.S.
And I think more than two parties are needed for America like we have in Canada

My 2¢

Edit: ROFL the Work Less Party !

I like to debate the issues that I feel are important so honestly I have no problem with what people say to me here. Yes, I know I get testy and even angry sometimes because what's impossible for me to say in real life is easy when dealing with faceless online people. I'm trying to work on that but in the meantime I really don't mind anyone pointing out the flaws in my thinking no matter how hard they try to drive it into me. I've had major disagreements with Foil and Lothar, just to name a few examples, but since I know without doubt that they're decent people (but wrong anyway ), I continue to respect them in the highest order.

As much as I don't like the other forum because of it's content there are many posters there that I DO like...and miss. It's just a very few bad apples that were bad even when they were here but regardless, I never meant anything by that "going to hell" comment when debating Thorne and it did bother me a lot when Woodchip decided to use parts of it as a contribution. I won't forgive him for that or his PM to me defending it.

Thanks for the 2 cents but it was worth more than that. I'm going to look up the reasons for a two party system too because it's really unfair.

Bee

[Spidey]

JFTR Bett, we don’t have a two party system by law, it has just worked out that way. Maybe we have a two party system because it’s easier to deal with, I dunno. When more people join other parties, and they reach a certain threshold, I’m pretty sure the media and the other parties will have to take them seriously.

The main problem I see with a left/right party system is the belief that only the extreme ends control the parties, which I don’t believe is the truth, or has to be the truth. Both parties are wide enuf for the people in the middle.

Anyone who gets the required number of signatures can run for office in this country, unfortunately because the parties and media are private organizations, they don’t have to let all the candidates have coverage or debates with all parties.

I have heard some suggestions regarding changing the system, some I like some I don’t, as far as I’m concerned it’s up to the people to make other parties viable by showing support, joining them, and then demanding the media give them coverage using their economic pull as leverage. But then that’s just me, because I’m a free market kinda guy.

Why register as Independent or Non Partisan, then complain there are no other parties?

[dissent]

googled \"american political parties\",

found this.

[Gandalf Stormcrow]

Running a presidential campaign to win is just like running an effective business; it's all about marketing.

[flip]

Not just politicans but the non-compromising voters who vote them in based on just that reason. Please believe me when I say it bothers me but I can't find a way to protect a young rape victim from an unwanted and unprovoked pregnancy. If they would allow me to administer a pill to stop the cell from developing I would gladly change back but I don't see it happening.

You know, I get the point about the pill, although I also see it as a way to throw all personal responsibility out the window too. To me that's a very small matter compared to partial birth abortions.

They reach in and flip the infant backwards, exposing everything but his or hers' heads, and ram a scissor like instrument into its spinal cord.

No normal individual could support or allow that. If I had to make a decision just based on this one of MANY differences, I'd at least weigh the pill against partial birth abortions and see what that leaves me with. Any person that doesn't find that barbaric is inherently flawed.