[quote]skaz05 wrote:
I am concerned now that neither candidate knows what is going on with this financial crisis, or they are not being totally forthcoming, like they aren’t telling us everything they know.
Kind of makes me scared…[/quote]
When little things get overblown no big deal.
When big things are played down… fuck!
PS thank god you changed your avatar finally.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
JamFly wrote:
Obama needs to realise that if he becomes president he will not have 800 billion to spend once a 700 billion bailout has been accommodated.
You do realize we are spending BILLIONS A DAY in Iraq right now?
Billions.
If you just woke up, there go a few more BILLION dollars that we don’t have to begin with.[/quote]
Numbers not your strength, eh?
Neither one of them will be up to the task. The bailout won’t accomplish anything and once enough people realize that politicians are powerless to stop the financial tsunami, we’re going to be entering a whole new world.
What I saw-- nothing different at all.
For all the talk about ‘change’, there was little variation on the theme.
What did the candidates really say?
McCain threatened to use the veto pen-- that’s a novel idea.
Obama continued to wage class warfare. He promised to cut taxes for 95% while expanding entitlements and government, certainly on the backs of the most productive people in the nation.
re: Earmarks-- Sure, the earmarks don’t constitute a majority of our fiscal problems, but if anyone has listened to or read Dave Ramsay, you could liken it to ‘baby steps’ in a Total Government Money Makeover. Folks are throwing the term ‘billions’ around like it’s nothing. $18B is $18B.
Sounds like government folks I consulted for “A million dollars here, a million dollars there, next thing you know you’re talking about real money.”
Neither one of these guys hit a homerun, a triple, or even a double IMO. They said nothing that you wouldn’t expect the respective party’s candidates to say.
McCain: Accountability in govt, tax cuts, business friendly, aggressive military stance
Obama: Tax rich and businesses, experimentation in foreign policy, increased social spending
You could have substituted any leading R or D for those positions.
Obama and all the other innumerates need to come clean when they say 95% will get a tax cut. What they always fail to mention is that the top 5% income earners pay over 50% of the taxes.
re: Obama and loopholes – Hell hath no fury like a government who can’t collect blood from a turnip. A loop hole is a euphemism for “We wrote shitty law that the smarter people can legally take advantage of”.
As far as debate style and content went, I’d call it a draw. As far as accomplishing goals, I’d give a slight edge to Obama. McCain needed not to come off like senile-- he came off strong and aggressive-- good attributes for C-i-C. Obama came off as confident and managed not to look like a deer in the headlights-- that was a win for him. What he said was vague, insubstantive, and as predicted, more of the same democrat M.O.
I still can’t believe one of these 2 men will be President.
[quote]AynRandLuvr wrote:
Numbers not your strength, eh?
[/quote]
you should probably think before you post a little more. How many days have we been at war? How many days have we been spending billions a day? How many days has it been since just the beginning of the sub-prime burst even?
Since people have been screaming that it is only the beginning? How many days will it be before the bailout occurs, that we are spending billions a day?
Its like saying I can’t pay my mortgage because I’ve been burning $50 a night at the strip club. “But its only $50!”
re: Kissinger exchange
[i]"Obama tried to twist out of the ‘no preconditions’ statement by claiming that Henry Kissinger supported it. McCain openly scoffed at the notion, and for good reason - Kissinger didn’t say it:
Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized.
He says: 'Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain.
We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.’
Either Obama lied, or he’s too inexperienced to understand what Kissinger said and actually meant.[/i]
Source: Debate #1 wrap-up; Update: Kissinger repudiates Obama – HotAir
I’m not going to hold my breath that this analysis will make it to the mainstream media.
Style and atmosphere was a clear Obama win.
Content a rough draw with the edge to McCain. The first part was Obama just barely (by sounding good) the second part was McCain on substance, irrespective of his style shortcoming.
Obama still didn’t say anything specific, which I was really hoping for. He did, however, come off a good deal better than I thought he would in the foreign policy arena.
McCain could have and should have scored real points by mentioning he didn’t want taxpayers footing the 700 Billion dollar bill to rescue wall st. The vast majority of americans are pissed about that and it would have run well.
McCain could have and should have scored real points by giving better reasons why he wants to cut cap gains tax and “taxes for the rich”.
One thing I would have directly asked Obama, right after I stated I didn’t want the taxpayer’s footing the bailout, would have been “so, are you SURE you really want to raise taxes on the people who are most capable of using that extra money to create NEW JOBS during an economic recession?”
That would have scored points if he phrased it correctly as well.
Worst debate ever. Seriously people…you guys actually want that senile bumbling idiot as your president? That dude invoked Reagan’s name more times in one night than I have ever heard.
I am definitely not voting this election. I will not give legitimacy to this fraudulent rigged system.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Content a rough draw with the edge to McCain. The first part was Obama just barely (by sounding good) the second part was McCain on substance, irrespective of his style shortcoming. Obama still didn’t say anything specific, which I was really hoping for. [/quote]
Sadly, many, many voters will vote on ‘style’ than ‘substance’.
Is that effective strategy in bodybuilding?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
re: Kissinger exchange
[i]"Obama tried to twist out of the ‘no preconditions’ statement by claiming that Henry Kissinger supported it. McCain openly scoffed at the notion, and for good reason - Kissinger didn’t say it:
Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized.
He says: 'Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level.
My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.’
Either Obama lied, or he’s too inexperienced to understand what Kissinger said and actually meant.[/i]
Source: Debate #1 wrap-up; Update: Kissinger repudiates Obama – HotAir
I’m not going to hold my breath that this analysis will make it to the mainstream media.
I think you’re missing the point. That’s what Obama means by “change”. He’s going to chance someone else’s words into his own…
Seriously, don’t hold your breath waiting for the mainstream liberal media to point out how Obama LIED about Kissingers comments.
Can you imagine if McCain had said such a thing? It would be the lead story in most of the media outlets.
[/quote]
Really? The biggest lie of of the night, and there were a handful by both candidates, was McCain saying General Petraeus had declared that Obama’s plan for Iraq would lose us the war. That was completely untrue, and clear if you have been following his stance on Iraq.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Content a rough draw with the edge to McCain. The first part was Obama just barely (by sounding good) the second part was McCain on substance, irrespective of his style shortcoming. Obama still didn’t say anything specific, which I was really hoping for.
Sadly, many, many voters will vote on ‘style’ than ‘substance’.
Is that effective strategy in bodybuilding?
[/quote]
This debate will certainly be won or lost on style. The content from both sides was nothing new. The things that caught my attention were the stylistic differences. In this area I think McCain was the clear winner for these reasons:
Barak stated several times that he agreed with McCain. McCain never (that I recall) returned the favor. In stead of saying he agreed with Barak, McCain would dismiss what he said with a “well of course” statement.
Barak referred to McCain as “John” rather than senator McCain. This did nothing for me but may be an issue in certain parts of the country, like the south, that may view this as disrespectful.
Barak spent a lot of time on the defensive. He would refute McCains statements in detail, while McCain would simply chuckle, quickly dismiss Barak’s statements and move back on the offensive. Certainly not convensional debate protocal, but I thought it was effective.
McCain never looked at Barak, while Barak was trying to engage McCain. I thought this was dismissive on McCain’s part and a good move. Again, not convensional protocol but I appreciated it.
Most may not the view the debate the same way I did. I not a huge McCain fan but I really liked his attitude. I kept picturing these two not engaging each other, but engaging other world leaders in difficult situations. McCain came off as tough and Barak came off as a pussy.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I think you’re missing the point. That’s what Obama means by “change”. He’s going to chance someone else’s words into his own…
Seriously, don’t hold your breath waiting for the mainstream liberal media to point out how Obama LIED about Kissingers comments.
Can you imagine if McCain had said such a thing? It would be the lead story in most of the media outlets.
[/quote]
Here is the straight quote from Kissinger for the rest of you who were too lazy to look it up:
"Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it.
And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we – we know we’re dealing with authentic…
CNN’s Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?
Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations."
John McCain was splitting hairs by implying that Obama meant a Presidential meeting, when Obama specifically said “nobody is talking about that” Either way it doesn’t matter because the Secretary of State is part of the the executive and subject to the President’s executive plan.
Plain and sinmple, Kissinger said the US should meet with Iran without pre-conditions. Obama was right.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
A few things that I’m sure others observed as well:
Do you have any idea what you’re talking about? Mispronounced a few names, bragged about all his Congressional junkets around the world, then referred to Georgia’s authoritarian, stupid (see last month) president as “great.” But the capper was Pakistan:
"The regular viewer might not have picked up on the debatable claim that Pakistan was a failed state c. 1999, but I�??m pretty sure there are regional experts who would dispute that description if the technical definition of failed state and the criteria of the Failed State Index are anything to go by.
Actually, when people hear the phrase failed state they think, not unreasonably, of places such as Somalia and Afghanistan, so what McCain said tonight was that Washington should continue to provide copious amounts of aid to a state that is on the brink of imploding.
Pakistan has a lot of problems and its state is weak in many parts of the country, but it simply doesn�??t make sense to call it failed when it possesses an organized military, a semi-functioning administrative apparatus and a nuclear arsenal.
It may be dysfunctional in many ways, but that is a pretty long way from being failed. Here is one definition of failed state:
A state that is failing has several attributes. One of the most common is the loss of physical control of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
Other attributes of state failure include the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services, and the inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.
There are parts of Pakistani territory where at least part of this description might apply today, just as it could have been applied to parts of Pakistan for the last sixty years, but having relatively ungovernable or autonomous regions does not mean that the entire state is failing.
To the extent that you can call Pakistan a failed state, of course, you must call Iraq and Afghanistan under U.S.-backed governments the same things, except that they are even worse.
Furthermore, under Musharraf�??s tenure since they have started ranking countries Pakistan has become progressively worse.
Foreign Policy�??s Failed State Index for the last two years has listed Pakistan at 12 and 9 respectively on the list of most failed states, so it is certainly not doing very well, but the gradual worsening of conditions in Pakistan vindicates skepticism of Musharraf�??s rule rather than support for it.
McCain�??s lauding of Musharraf, based in no small part I imagine on Musharraf�??s own fantasies of being an Ataturk-like figure for Pakistan, is obviously misplaced, and a well-informed audience would recognize the extent of his blunder.
If I were an Obama partisan, I would be hitting McCain, ostensibly the great foreign policy master, on this for days to come. If McCain demonstrating his lack of understanding is what �??pinning back�?? Obama�??s ears means, I should think Obama would welcome more of it."
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/26/tie-goes-to-the-challenger/
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
re: Kissinger exchange
[i]"Obama tried to twist out of the ‘no preconditions’ statement by claiming that Henry Kissinger supported it. McCain openly scoffed at the notion, and for good reason - Kissinger didn’t say it:
Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized.
He says: ‘Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.’
Either Obama lied, or he’s too inexperienced to understand what Kissinger said and actually meant.[/i]
Source: Debate #1 wrap-up; Update: Kissinger repudiates Obama – HotAir
I’m not going to hold my breath that this analysis will make it to the mainstream media.[/quote]
I have no intentions of turning this into personal attacks, but didn’t Obama state several times that he did NOT mean “at the presidential level” but meant sending representatives? He made that fairly clear because that exact exchange came up during the debate.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
<<< I still can’t believe one of these 2 men will be President.[/quote]
That really is it isn’t it?
Debates always come down to 2 levels.
Actual substantive reality and public perception.
The latter is what is always said to determine who “won”.
Obama could have quoted Big Bird and Homer Simpson all night and a fair piece of the public and media would have declared him the hands down winner on the strength of his neato factor.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Content a rough draw with the edge to McCain. The first part was Obama just barely (by sounding good) the second part was McCain on substance, irrespective of his style shortcoming. Obama still didn’t say anything specific, which I was really hoping for.
Sadly, many, many voters will vote on ‘style’ than ‘substance’.
Is that effective strategy in bodybuilding?
This debate will certainly be won or lost on style. The content from both sides was nothing new. The things that caught my attention were the stylistic differences. In this area I think McCain was the clear winner for these reasons:
Barak stated several times that he agreed with McCain. McCain never (that I recall) returned the favor. In stead of saying he agreed with Barak, McCain would dismiss what he said with a “well of course” statement.
Barak referred to McCain as “John” rather than senator McCain. This did nothing for me but may be an issue in certain parts of the country, like the south, that may view this as disrespectful.
Barak spent a lot of time on the defensive. He would refute McCains statements in detail, while McCain would simply chuckle, quickly dismiss Barak’s statements and move back on the offensive. Certainly not convensional debate protocal, but I thought it was effective.
McCain never looked at Barak, while Barak was trying to engage McCain. I thought this was dismissive on McCain’s part and a good move. Again, not convensional protocol but I appreciated it.
Most may not the view the debate the same way I did. I not a huge McCain fan but I really liked his attitude. I kept picturing these two not engaging each other, but engaging other world leaders in difficult situations. McCain came off as tough and Barak came off as a pussy.[/quote]
I highly doubt most of the country will see it that way. More likely, McCain will come off as an angry old man who can’t even indulge in common courtesy (never mind the rampant condescension). The Bob Dole comparison is becoming more valid every day.
[quote]borrek wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
I think you’re missing the point. That’s what Obama means by “change”. He’s going to chance someone else’s words into his own…
Seriously, don’t hold your breath waiting for the mainstream liberal media to point out how Obama LIED about Kissingers comments.
Can you imagine if McCain had said such a thing? It would be the lead story in most of the media outlets.
Here is the straight quote from Kissinger for the rest of you who were too lazy to look it up:
"Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it.
And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we – we know we’re dealing with authentic…
CNN’s Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?
Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations."
John McCain was splitting hairs by implying that Obama meant a Presidential meeting, when Obama specifically said “nobody is talking about that” Either way it doesn’t matter because the Secretary of State is part of the the executive and subject to the President’s executive plan.
Plain and sinmple, Kissinger said the US should meet with Iran without pre-conditions. Obama was right.
[/quote]
Agreed. Some seem to be trying to change history.