Tonight's Debate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
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.

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]

That is the way it came across. It came across like an old man treating his running mate like he isn’t even worth the eye contact. If that sounds like a “win”, it must only be to those who were die hard supporters of McCain to begin with.

103

[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]

Wrong…go back and watch the vp debate where the question was originally asked. I am going to paraphrase here…

Would you as president, in your first year and without any precondition, meet with (insert half a dozen nut job world leaders)in washington or anywhere else?

Answer was “I would”.

Pretty simple. He said he would meet with nutjobs in the washington without precondition.

104

[quote]dhickey wrote:
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.

Wrong…go back and watch the vp debate where the question was originally asked. I am going to paraphrase here…

Would you as president, in your first year and without any precondition, meet with (insert half a dozen nut job world leaders)in washington or anywhere else?

Answer was “I would”.

Pretty simple. He said he would meet with nutjobs in the washington without precondition.[/quote]

You are honestly sitting here and nitpicking the ADMINISTRATION meeting with world leaders and whether he himself met them face to face?

He clearly stated last night that he did NOT mean personal contact with the president.

Are you upset that he made his position clear? Why play semantics here? He answered the question last night as directly as possible.

105

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

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]

Agreed. I certainly have a differnt outlook than most. McCain’s attitude matches the attitude I have for Obama. Obama was not even the second most qualified candidate on the left and I can’t even beleive this guy made is as far as he did.

I was also insanely dissappointed in McCain getting the nomination and was planning to vote third party. McCain is winning me over a bit just becuase I think you could throw this guy into the fire and he would hold his own against anyone.

I definaty do not see this trate in Obama. There are nutjobs around the world licking their chops a the prospect of Obama in the White House. Not the only reason I don’t like (dispise) Obama but it is very concerning to me.

I do think the VP debate is going to be a bloodbath.

106

Obama clearly won the debate amongst independents (read: non-partisan political hacks like 99% of this board)…look at the numbers–that’s really all that matters.

107

[quote]
Wrong…go back and watch the vp debate where the question was originally asked. I am going to paraphrase here…

Would you as president, in your first year and without any precondition, meet with (insert half a dozen nut job world leaders)in washington or anywhere else?

Answer was “I would”.

Pretty simple. He said he would meet with nutjobs in the washington without precondition.[/quote]

“As president” simply means “when you are president”

When Obama says as president he wants to bring troops home, are we to believe he meant to pick them up at the airport?

108

Obama has stated several times that he would meet, as President, with ‘rogue’ regime leaders. McCain called him on that.

Is it nitpicking? Probably.

109

[quote]Professor X 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 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]

He did say that, but FOX pulled out his statement from earlier in the year that got him attacked by Hillary and Biden where he DID say exactly that and exactly as Mccain characterized it.

Just like he did IN FACT state that both sides should exercise restraint when Russia moved on Georgia until somebody pulled him aside and said “pssst, Georgia is on our side and Russia is the aggressor”… OH YEAH, well then blah blah blah.

He also did IN FACT say earlier this year, or maybe it was late last year, that he would move unilaterally in Pakistan even throwing out the nuclear word just like Mccain said.

This is the part where you ignore all that and throw Palin at me doc, but I have not defended her qualifications here once.

Yes, Mccain has flip flopped on some issues, but not ones of national security and use of the military. Obama has no business near a stratego board never mind history’s mightiest military.

110

[quote]borrek wrote:

Wrong…go back and watch the vp debate where the question was originally asked. I am going to paraphrase here…

Would you as president, in your first year and without any precondition, meet with (insert half a dozen nut job world leaders)in washington or anywhere else?

Answer was “I would”.

Pretty simple. He said he would meet with nutjobs in the washington without precondition.

“As president” simply means “when you are president”

When Obama says as president he wants to bring troops home, are we to believe he meant to pick them up at the airport?

[/quote]

Apparently so. If he says he will provide health care, I guess that means he will be performing the procedures himself.

111

[quote]Professor X wrote:
dhickey wrote:
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.

Wrong…go back and watch the vp debate where the question was originally asked. I am going to paraphrase here…

Would you as president, in your first year and without any precondition, meet with (insert half a dozen nut job world leaders)in washington or anywhere else?

Answer was “I would”.

Pretty simple. He said he would meet with nutjobs in the washington without precondition.

You are honestly sitting here and nitpicking the ADMINISTRATION meeting with world leaders and whether he himself met them face to face?

He clearly stated last night that he did NOT mean personal contact with the president.
[/quote]

I don’t recall this. I recall him nuancing the words preparations and preconditions.

[quote]
Are you upset that he made his position clear? Why play semantics here? He answered the question last night as directly as possible.[/quote]

He is playing semantics, again.

Again, go watch the debate and listen to what he actually said. If he were to say that he was wrong and it would be naive to meet with these guys himself, I would concede your point.

But he has not which makes me wonder if his original statement was a mistake, he has since changed his mind, or he hasn’t changed his mind and is just spinning to save face.

Go back and watch primary debate and tell me where there was any ambiguety in the question or the answer.

112

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Apparently so. If he says he will provide health care, I guess that means he will be performing the procedures himself.

[/quote]

Well, to some he is the Savior…

113

[quote]dhickey wrote:

Again, go watch the debate and listen to what he actually said. If he were to say that he was wrong and it would be naive to meet with these guys himself, I would concede your point.

But he has not which makes me wonder if his original statement was a mistake, he has since changed his mind, or he hasn’t changed his mind and is just spinning to save face.

Go back and watch primary debate and tell me where there was any ambiguety in the question or the answer.[/quote]

I watched last night’s debate pretty closely and, AGAIN, he stated that he did NOT mean personal contact. That means attempting to act as if he did not make this clear at this point makes little sense.

This is like saying Bill Gates is naive if he says that he will be releasing a new product…because he won’t actually be doing it himself as his company will.

There are HOARDS of other issues to discuss than this poor job at nitpicking.

He made himself clear last night. It must be difficult to accept.

114

[quote]borrek wrote:

Wrong…go back and watch the vp debate where the question was originally asked. I am going to paraphrase here…

Would you as president, in your first year and without any precondition, meet with (insert half a dozen nut job world leaders)in washington or anywhere else?

Answer was “I would”.

Pretty simple. He said he would meet with nutjobs in the washington without precondition.

“As president” simply means “when you are president”

When Obama says as president he wants to bring troops home, are we to believe he meant to pick them up at the airport?

[/quote]

Fine, don’t watch it and listen to what he actually said. There is no doubt in my mind what he meant at the time. There was no doubt in anyones minds until he started to spin. Go on believing what you would like.

I don’t even know that I appose meeting directly with some of these guys. I wouldn’t mind having words directly with Ackmadinijad (sp?), although I don’t know I could keep from choking him.

What irks me is the indecisiveness of Obama. He doesn’t seem strong on any of his positions. He is obviously learning as he goes here and I don’t know that now is the best time for that.

I would actually like to be a fly on the wall if McCain where to meet with some of these guys. Obama would be a disaster in the same room as these guys.

115

[quote]dhickey wrote:

Fine, don’t watch it and listen to what he actually said. There is no doubt in my mind what he meant at the time. There was no doubt in anyones minds until he started to spin. Go on believing what you would like.

[/quote]

Holy crap people…

McCain: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who’s been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama’s depiction of his – of his positions on the issue. I’ve known him for 35 years.
Obama: We will take a look.
McCain: And I guarantee you he would not – he would not say that presidential top level.
Obama: NOBODY’S TALKING ABOUT THAT.

McCain: And I guarantee you he would not – he would not say that presidential top level.
Obama: NOBODY’S TALKING ABOUT THAT.

McCain: And I guarantee you he would not – he would not say that presidential top level.
Obama: NOBODY’S TALKING ABOUT THAT.

McCain: And I guarantee you he would not – he would not say that presidential top level.
Obama: NOBODY’S TALKING ABOUT THAT.

116

[quote]dhickey wrote:
borrek wrote:

Wrong…go back and watch the vp debate where the question was originally asked. I am going to paraphrase here…

Would you as president, in your first year and without any precondition, meet with (insert half a dozen nut job world leaders)in washington or anywhere else?

Answer was “I would”.

Pretty simple. He said he would meet with nutjobs in the washington without precondition.

“As president” simply means “when you are president”

When Obama says as president he wants to bring troops home, are we to believe he meant to pick them up at the airport?

Fine, don’t watch it and listen to what he actually said. There is no doubt in my mind what he meant at the time. There was no doubt in anyones minds until he started to spin. Go on believing what you would like.

I don’t even know that I appose meeting directly with some of these guys. I wouldn’t mind having words directly with Ackmadinijad (sp?), although I don’t know I could keep from choking him.

What irks me is the indecisiveness of Obama. He doesn’t seem strong on any of his positions. He is obviously learning as he goes here and I don’t know that now is the best time for that.

I would actually like to be a fly on the wall if McCain where to meet with some of these guys. Obama would be a disaster in the same room as these guys.
[/quote]

The problem I have with this mode of thinking…and again this is not an insult…is the belief that EITHER MAN is somehow NOT learning as they go. This is why they have people around them who are even more apt in these areas than they are personally.

Coming from the Bush administration where at times it seemed the man may not have known where Iraq was on the map, I am having hard time with those who act as if the president is supposed to be skilled at being president before he is president.

McCain needs to work on his image. He came across as bitter last night and very dismissive. That is not going to win over the undecided’s.

117

[quote]Professor X wrote:

He made himself clear last night. It must be difficult to accept.[/quote]

He’s made himself clear several times over on lots of issues. The problem is each time it is clearly different.

He is an inexperienced, indecisive man that is not well equipped to deal with complex and important issues of our time. Plain and simple. He hasn’t been through the fire and being a refreshing change isn’t going to buy him shit in world affairs or dealing with serious domestic issues.

118

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Professor X wrote:

He made himself clear last night. It must be difficult to accept.

He’s made himself clear several times over on lots of issues. The problem is each time it is clearly different.

He is an inexperienced, indecisive man that is not well equipped to deal with complex and important issues of our time. Plain and simple. He hasn’t been through the fire and being a refreshing change isn’t going to buy him shit in world affairs or dealing with serious domestic issues.[/quote]

McCain has been “through the fire” with regards to being “world dominant”? He has traveled a lot. That does not equal the ability to handle the world on a level that will allow us to remain powerful (mind you, this does include gaining respect since our own world image IS important).

Our financial system is fucked up at the moment. We are borrowing money we can’t even pay back from overseas. I think you will find that many are looking for a completely different strategy than what we have had for the last 10 years.

119

[quote]Professor X wrote:
… a completely different strategy than what we have had for the last 10 years.[/quote]

Something neither candidate is offering.

120

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The problem I have with this mode of thinking…and again this is not an insult…is the belief that EITHER MAN is somehow NOT learning as they go. This is why they have people around them who are even more apt in these areas than they are personally.
[/quote]

Agreed. I don’t give a shit about specific presidential duties and the daily routine. I care about the stones and conviction to do the job. Donald Trump would make a better president than Obama.

Not because he has more gov’t experience but becasue he is tough and decisive. Obama seem to be learning as he goes with respect to his own convictions and values. That is a problem for me.

Yep, not of fan of Bush foriegn policy.

You’re probably right for the campaign. I am not going to be voting for the best campaign. I agree with very little policy on both sides, so I am going to be voting for the person that has the berries for the job. If you want to vote for the best executed campaign or the guy that seems more polished, go ahead. I hardly see how that is “change”.