[quote]Professor X wrote:
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.[/quote]
What’s more important, image or action? We can’t be everyone’s friend. The president need to be tough and decisive and needs to act in OUR best interest. Whether you like or not (i do not) we are the parents of the world.
Sometimes you need to act like a parent and not your kid’s best freind. No other country on this planet is on our level and their perception of us is secondary to what is best for us. I am a bit of an isolationist so I mean this in general terms. I don’t want people to pipe in with imperialism.
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!”
[/quote]
The minimum of billions is 2 billion. Multiply this by 365. Wow, we spent $730 billion in Irag last year!
Please tell me that you are too young to vote. You’re probably not, so my vote and yours are equal. That’s repugnant somehow.
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.
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.
[/quote]
So he tried to use a “non-point?” McCain did make it clear he wasn’t opposed to lower level contacs, after all, but strongly opposed to Presidential level contact without preconditions. So what the heck was Obama’s goal? By the end of it, Obama seemed to share McCain’s position…
Not to hijack this thread, but what exactly do you think would be different between, McCain or Obama meeting with the Iranian leader? Seriously, I’m having a tough time figuring out what some of you guys mean. Is any of the candidates expected to hypnotize the Iranians?
You’re acting as if Iran deciding to give up or pursuing its right to a civil nuclear program is decided by teenage girls. Trust me, they don’t give a rat’s ass about Obama’s charms or McCain’s prolonged stay in Hanoi.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Not to hijack this thread, but what exactly do you think would be different between, McCain or Obama meeting with the Iranian leader? Seriously, I’m having a tough time figuring out what some of you guys mean. Is any of the candidates expected to hypnotize the Iranians?
You’re acting as if Iran deciding to give up or pursuing its right to a civil nuclear program is decided by teenage girls. Trust me, they don’t give a rat’s ass about Obama’s charms or McCain’s prolonged stay in Hanoi.[/quote]
What? I don’t even get where the hell this question is coming from. Who’s acting like either candidate would “charm” the brutal Islamisic thugs running Iran? It doesn’t sound like either would even meet with the thugs, unless pre-conditions were set. What conversation are you following?
I want to know how much this 700 billion rescue of Wall Street is going to cut into Obama’s grand vision for America. He didn’t go into specifics, neither did McCain.
I was really let down by this debate. I wanted both candidates to tell America what they know about this financial crisis.
I watched it again this morning, I liked how Obama came out swinging right out of the gate with “This financial crisis is all Bush and the Republicans’ fault!” In fact, Obama kept doing that shit all night. “Everything is Bush and the Republican’s fault!”
I didn’t like that at all. I think Obama knows just how popular the phrase “It’s all Bush’s fault” is, he should use that for his campaign slogan!
Anyway, this ducking and dodging of the financial meltdown is incredibly frustrating. Didn’t both of them meet with Bush the other day? What did they talk about? What was discussed? I heard on CNBC that that meeting was very heated and Obama was shouting at McCain. I want to know what they were saying damn it!
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
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.[/quote]
Did you nod off to sleep while McCain said some of these things?
The minimum of billions is 2 billion. Multiply this by 365. Wow, we spent $730 billion in Irag last year!
Please tell me that you are too young to vote. You’re probably not, so my vote and yours are equal. That’s repugnant somehow.
[/quote]
I was a DOD contractor for 8 years. We had a $5 million yearly contract, and spent waayyyyy over $5mil. That is how the government operates. My point was not one of accounting, but simply that the war is just as detrimental to our bottom line as the bailout.
I think the bailout is necessary and the war is not. Obama’s spending plan isn’t all of the sudden negated because of the bailout, the government still needs to operate and the single biggest draw on it is the war.
Please try to stay civil. You’re no better than me, the only thing repugnant here is your attitude.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Not to hijack this thread, but what exactly do you think would be different between, McCain or Obama meeting with the Iranian leader? Seriously, I’m having a tough time figuring out what some of you guys mean. Is any of the candidates expected to hypnotize the Iranians?
You’re acting as if Iran deciding to give up or pursuing its right to a civil nuclear program is decided by teenage girls. Trust me, they don’t give a rat’s ass about Obama’s charms or McCain’s prolonged stay in Hanoi.
What? I don’t even get where the hell this question is coming from. Who’s acting like either candidate would “charm” the brutal Islamisic thugs running Iran? It doesn’t sound like either would even meet with the thugs, unless pre-conditions were set. What conversation are you following?[/quote]
One where McCain is lauded for his strength (whatever that means) and where Obama is hailed as a break from the aggressive policies of the last 8 years.
So I ask again, as far as Tehran is concerned, what difference does it make which clown ends up in the White House?
WHAT? The talking heads on the TV are offering their critique of the debate and I just heard that “McCain won the foreign policy portion of the debate because of his knowledge of history and facts, and Obama won the economic portion of the debate because he was able to PIN THE FINANCIAL CRISIS ON BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS”
I shit you not. This is how Obama won the debate, by blaming everything on Bush. What a hoot. No one knows what is going on here, no one probably cares, it is just so much easier to blame it all on Bush, instead of doing some homework and really finding out what is going on, right?
[quote]AynRandLuvr wrote:
If OBama wins and we get hit with a terror attack while Mr. Dither is on the watch, do we get to blame him? Nah, its all Bush’s fault.
As HH pointed out, McCain ate this little man’s lunch. [/quote]
We are trying to have a discussion here without what you and your brother usually bring to the table. Please act accordingly.
Bush was president during 9/11 yet it was blamed on Clinton. Why wouldn’t it work the same here if something happens in his first days in office?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Not to hijack this thread, but what exactly do you think would be different between, McCain or Obama meeting with the Iranian leader? Seriously, I’m having a tough time figuring out what some of you guys mean. Is any of the candidates expected to hypnotize the Iranians?
You’re acting as if Iran deciding to give up or pursuing its right to a civil nuclear program is decided by teenage girls. Trust me, they don’t give a rat’s ass about Obama’s charms or McCain’s prolonged stay in Hanoi.
What? I don’t even get where the hell this question is coming from. Who’s acting like either candidate would “charm” the brutal Islamisic thugs running Iran? It doesn’t sound like either would even meet with the thugs, unless pre-conditions were set. What conversation are you following?
One where McCain is lauded for his strength (whatever that means) and where Obama is hailed as a break from the aggressive policies of the last 8 years.
So I ask again, as far as Tehran is concerned, what difference does it make which clown ends up in the White House?[/quote]
Where does the whole charm thing fit into this? Now you’ve switched gears.
What’s the difference? Possibly none, if we go by what they said last night. In the end, I got the impression neither man wanted to sit down directly with Iran without conditions. However, both would allow lower level contacts until then. And both seem to favor tougher sanctions. I’m not sure where charm fits into that.
And anyone that believes Iran’s nuclear ambitions stop at the civl level is a fool.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
Not to hijack this thread, but what exactly do you think would be different between, McCain or Obama meeting with the Iranian leader? Seriously, I’m having a tough time figuring out what some of you guys mean. Is any of the candidates expected to hypnotize the Iranians?
You’re acting as if Iran deciding to give up or pursuing its right to a civil nuclear program is decided by teenage girls. Trust me, they don’t give a rat’s ass about Obama’s charms or McCain’s prolonged stay in Hanoi.
What? I don’t even get where the hell this question is coming from. Who’s acting like either candidate would “charm” the brutal Islamisic thugs running Iran? It doesn’t sound like either would even meet with the thugs, unless pre-conditions were set. What conversation are you following?
One where McCain is lauded for his strength (whatever that means) and where Obama is hailed as a break from the aggressive policies of the last 8 years.
So I ask again, as far as Tehran is concerned, what difference does it make which clown ends up in the White House?[/quote]
It doesn’t make a difference. I am also sure that many will not admit that. They are just singing the praises of their personal political choice at the moment.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
<<< I still can’t believe one of these 2 men will be President.
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]
And McCain could have quoted Fred Flintstone and how he watched the Flintstones for over 26 years and a good chunk of people would have seen that as a relevant argument and a meaningful postion on his personal history.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
AynRandLuvr wrote:
If OBama wins and we get hit with a terror attack while Mr. Dither is on the watch, do we get to blame him? Nah, its all Bush’s fault.
As HH pointed out, McCain ate this little man’s lunch.
We are trying to have a discussion here without what you and your brother usually bring to the table. Please act accordingly.
Bush was president during 9/11 yet it was blamed on Clinton. Why wouldn’t it work the same here if something happens in his first days in office?[/quote]
If that is true, then you need to stop sucking on borrek’s ass and call this shit both ways.
You friend is nothing but a fucking left wing sycophant, and you have not said a fucking thing about his stupid bullshit.
But I would expect nothing less from you when it comes to politics.
I missed the entire debate due to worshiping at the alter that is Texas High School Football.
For the first time in about a week I was not pre-occupied with the bailout, aka american ass rape.
I blame my kids, but for some reason or another - the tivo did not record the debate.
But a friend of mine from NH called me after the football game specifically to tell me he was so impressed with McCain’s performance, that he actually donated to his campaign.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
If that is true, then you need to stop sucking on borrek’s ass and call this shit both ways.
You friend is nothing but a fucking left wing sycophant, and you have not said a fucking thing about his stupid bullshit.
But I would expect nothing less from you when it comes to politics. [/quote]
You haven’t said anything to me either. If you disagree with what I have quoted, feel free to refute it. No need to get angry or insulting.
…and left wing, not quite. I actually voted for George Bush the first time. I didn’t the second because we were on the wrong track. We’re still on the wrong track.