Tonight's Debate

[Burnout18]

first thing i noticed, Obama has a flag pin, but McCain doesn't. He must hate America.

[Bob]

first thing i noticed, Obama has a flag pin, but McCain doesn't. He must hate America.

i don't know if you heard, but he was a POW?

[Bob]

also he was no miss congeniality in the senate, i heard that too

[kaiser soze]

And something is fundamental and stuff

[Burnout18]

i don't know if you heard, but he was a POW?

but, i am programmed to think that if someone isn't wearing a flag pin, they aren't american.

[Bob]

these guys get through about 30 seconds of an answer before i forget what the question was. i don't believe the question was "senator mccain, has anyone ever given you a bracelet?" i think it had something to do with iran but i don't think he ever said anything about iran in his answer

straight talk.

[travesty]

these guys get through about 30 seconds of an answer before i forget what the question was. i don't believe the question was "senator mccain, has anyone ever given you a bracelet?" i think it had something to do with iran but i don't think he ever said anything about iran in his answer

straight talk.

No doubt, round and round and round

[Burnout18]

Let me just say, before this is over, Obama should lose. I mean come on McCain is supposed to be the super expert on foreign policy. and let me just say that would be ok.....But i think he is doing allright so far.

[Bob]

precondition precondition precondition precondition precondition

[Bjork]

I hate to say it, but so far it seems Mccain knows his shit.

Is it just me or is Obama somehow changing the subject on questions.

[Bob]

I hate to say it, but so far it seems Mccain knows his shit.

Is it just me or is Obama somehow changing the subject on questions.

they both are, but yeah. energy independence...wait, wasn't this question about russia?

[Bjork]

Its like ...

a street smart kid "debating" a book smart kid

[Bob]

what's bothering me is how mccain keeps putting obama on the defensive, making him say "that's not true," "i never said that" etc, he keeps making him deny things, and it makes him look weak

but it's like, the easiest way to make your opponent say those things is to say untrue things about them, so...that shouldn't be an effective oratory strategy, but it is, and it kills me

[Bob]

also, i love obama's smile

i think i'm gay now

damn you obama

[Dorothy Wood]

I got frustrated by that debate and didn't pay enough attention. :(

but yeah, obama's smile is killer man. nobody would blame anyone for going gay over that smile.

[Bjork]

Their sappy personal tangents they go on bothers me more.

"Yes we need to keep an eye on Russia, and when I saved the kitten from the gutter ... Blah blah blah ..."

[Dorothy Wood]

did anybody notice the audience at the end? the candidates left the stage on opposite sides and almost everyone's heads and eyes turned to watch obama, not mccain. he just got all those people pregnant! (with hope)

[Bob]

and it's mississippi!

mccain did get a good one in though. the one where he was talking about negotiating with achmedinjihad or whatever (preconditions!) and he said something like "you say you want to wipe israel off the map. we say 'oh, no you don't!'" i think that was the biggest laugh i heard from the crowd, obama lost a bit of steam there (and yeah i guess it was kind of funny).

still

[Dorothy Wood]

and it's mississippi!

mccain did get a good one in though. the one where he was talking about negotiating with achmedinjihad or whatever (preconditions!) and he said something like "you say you want to wipe israel off the map. we say 'oh, no you don't!'" i think that was the biggest laugh i heard from the crowd, obama lost a bit of steam there (and yeah i guess it was kind of funny).

still

well, it's come out that that statement was mistranslated, he didn't actually say that, he said something bad, but not that extreme. same with the "death to..." stuff, its meaning gets lost in translation. it's more like "down with". even though neither are particularly good, it's not as bad as some people like to make it out to be.

[Bjork]

Mccain did a lot of name dropping ...and he belittled Obama.

What a catfight!

[Bob]

well, it's come out that that statement was mistranslated, he didn't actually say that, he said something bad, but not that extreme. same with the "death to..." stuff, its meaning gets lost in translation. it's more like "down with". even though neither are particularly good, it's not as bad as some people like to make it out to be.

shut the fuck up mccain was a POW in vietnam

[Bjork]

shut the fuck up mccain was a POW in vietnam

On that subject ... I found it pretty admirable of him to stay with his men after they said he could go.

I don't think Obama would do it, he doesn't seem like the type to get his hands dirty ... He just knows how to talk his way out of it.

[funk63]

On that subject ... I found it pretty admirable of him to stay with his men after they said he could go.

I don't think Obama would do it, he doesn't seem like the type to get his hands dirty ... He just knows how to talk his way out of it.

He'd probably do some kind of african jig type shit to get free.







That was stupid.

[RobMoney$]

shut the fuck up mccain was a POW in vietnam


...but McCain's probably gonna die within the next 4 years anyway so it doesn't matter if he makes Obama look like a first term Senator in these debates.

[checkyourprez]

...but McCain's probably gonna die within the next 4 years anyway so it doesn't matter if he makes Obama look like a first term Senator in these debates.

thats damn true, and thats why you have to really watch the vice presidential debates. palin never wants to talk to the press. theres a reason for that. many reasons actually. how she gets school by bidden is going to show us the real republican candidate. it will be a scary site.

[Bob]

...but McCain's probably gonna die within the next 4 years anyway so it doesn't matter if he makes Obama look like a first term Senator in these debates.

mmm, yes, mccain's constant reminders of how he knew kissinger and how he was in the senate in the 80's and 90's and his namedropping reagan really reminded me of how inexperienced obama is

[100% ILL]

mmm, yes, mccain's constant reminders of how he knew kissinger and how he was in the senate in the 80's and 90's and his namedropping reagan really reminded me of how inexperienced obama is

And this is the million dollar (trillion dollar?) question. Do we go with the experience, or try something new?

[kaiser soze]

mccain straight out lied about protecting and serving Veterans, his record of voting against them is deplorable and he is not a voice for our Veterans

http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/mccain-lies-about-his-voting-record-for-veterans/

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=19740

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnfXIrcMN3M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzr3pdXqZ98

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spflya_2e5w&feature=related

he's a liar and a fake patriot

[Bob]

And this is the million dollar (trillion dollar?) question. Do we go with the experience, or try something new?

on the one hand, obama promises change, but is vague about it

on the other hand, mccain promises to cut spending (in the face of a $700 billion bailout) and knows reagan

i started out being sarcastic but yeah, it's a hard question

[skra75]

strictly from a debate standpoint, obama got kinda schooled tonight. I'm still voting for him but damn that was sad. my man needs to grow a sack I was hoping he'd destroy mccain, he had the power to but he chose not to use it for whatever reason.

[100% ILL]

strictly from a debate standpoint, obama got kinda schooled tonight. I'm still voting for him but damn that was sad. my man needs to grow a sack I was hoping he'd destroy mccain, he had the power to but he chose not to use it for whatever reason.


It's typical of the Democrats. they're always stepping on eggshells not to offend anyone, which makes them look weak. In my opinion it's better to have a stance and stick to it, rather than mealy mouthing and looking weak.

[Dorothy Wood]

I think it's naive to assume that because mccain has more government experience that he'll be attending to every single tiny little thing that happens with our economy or diplomacy or anything really. it's already clear that he's barely in charge of his own campaign.

[Bob]

i don't care how shitty my candidate's policies are, long as they don't look like no got damn pussy up in front that their podium, i mean shit

[skra75]

*applause* (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2295844522_ab0e71dee3.jpg?v=0)

[100% ILL]

i don't care how shitty my candidate's policies are, long as they don't look like no got damn pussy up in front that their podium, i mean shit


That's not what I meant, but point taken. Pretty funny though (y)

[RobMoney$]

i don't care how shitty my candidate's policies are, long as they don't look like no got damn pussy up in front that their podium, i mean shit


Well I don't want another third term of Bush policies, so there's no way I'm voting for McSame.

...and plus, he's so out of touch with the country. Did you know he doesn't even know how many homes he owns?

[RobMoney$]

Hillary wiped the floor with him in their debates. He showed once again that once he gets off his script, his vaunted oratorical skills are significantly lessened.

The Emperor has no clothes.

[ToucanSpam]

Bob's point about McSame putting Obama on the defensive couldn't be any more true. It's a sleazy way to debate but it looks like a reasonable (or unreasonable, depending on your logic) chunk of people bought into his arguments.


Overall, neither impressed me very much. I would say it was a draw, but if I could, I would be voting Obama anyway.


And not because of his smile, either.

[100% ILL]

Well I don't want another third term of Bush policies, so there's no way I'm voting for McSame.

...and plus, he's so out of touch with the country. Did you know he doesn't even know how many homes he owns?

I'm sorry. I'm a little confused, I thought you were a McCain supporter; at least that is what your "So you want Change?" thread led me to believe.



This is just an interesting e-mail I recieved, but I thought it was spot on and conveyed a lot of the same things I've been thinking.
I'm RobMoney, and I approve this message.

some of the contents of your thread:

I don't agree with John Mc Cain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there's a huge difference.

Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate in 1982

Just pointing out an incosistency as I see it. Feel free to clarify.

[checkyourprez]

I'm sorry. I'm a little confused, I thought you were a McCain supporter; at least that is what your "So you want Change?" thread led me to believe.





some of the contents of your thread:

I don't agree with John Mc Cain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there's a huge difference.

Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate in 1982

Just pointing out an incosistency as I see it. Feel free to clarify.


you severely missed the sarcasm in his post.

[QueenAdrock]

Overall, neither impressed me very much. I would say it was a draw, but if I could, I would be voting Obama anyway.

That's the thing. Quite a few commentators (both conservative and liberal) said that it was a draw. Which to me, signals an Obama win in the long run. This debate was about foreign policy, which is supposed to be McCain's strength. He was supposed to slaughter Obama in this debate. Since Obama was able to come off strong in this debate too (enough so that neither was considered to 'win'), that signals bad news for McCain.

[saz]

He'd probably do some kind of african jig type shit to get free.







That was stupid.

yeah it was stupid as i hope you were joking.

[100% ILL]

you severely missed the sarcasm in his post.

I did notice the sarcasm. But my point is




Nevermind

[valvano]

So can you kids continue to call McCain "McSame" when last night Obama had to state that he agreed with McCain at least 8-10 times, if not more??

Obama was exposed for what he is, an empty suit. How many times did he utter "uh" "um" "ah" "and and" etc?

And when he was talking about the economy in Georgia, how would he improve it....by raising taxes on the citizenship???

Obama is making the same mistakes G W B makes, refuses to admit when he was wrong. W has been wrong on a ton of things, and Obama refuses to admit he was wrong about the surge, etc.

[Burnout18]

Obama was exposed for what he is, an empty suit. How many times did he utter "uh" "um" "ah" "and and" etc?


83 times,,, about that. I seriously counted

[saz]

Obama refuses to admit he was wrong about the surge, etc.

the surge didn't work. what worked was bribing sunni tribal and militia leaders to not attack american soldiers.

[valvano]

the surge didn't work. what worked was bribing sunni tribal and militia leaders to not attack american soldiers.

you better let obama know that because he has stated it has worked beyond his wildest dreams......
:rolleyes:

[saz]

yeah i know, i don't know why he doesn't challenge mccain on it.

[valvano]

yeah i know, i don't know why he doesn't challenge mccain on it.

maybe because he is weak? he should go back to community organizing..:)

[ToucanSpam]

So can you kids continue to call McCain "McSame" when last night Obama had to state that he agreed with McCain at least 8-10 times, if not more??


Obama is making the same mistakes G W B makes, refuses to admit when he was wrong. W has been wrong on a ton of things, and Obama refuses to admit he was wrong about the surge, etc.

It is well documented that McCain has voted in unison with Bush on an alarmingly large number of things in the past several years. That's where we get "McSame" just in case you are wondering. Additionally, if someone makes broad, vague statements, it's hard not to say "I agree". McCain had a lame and lazy attack plan for the debate and he failed to capitalize on his "strength" in foreign policy.


Comparing Obama to Bush is quite the stretch, sir.

[valvano]

It is well documented that McCain has voted in unison with Bush on an alarmingly large number of things in the past several years. That's where we get "McSame" just in case you are wondering. Additionally, if someone makes broad, vague statements, it's hard not to say "I agree". McCain had a lame and lazy attack plan for the debate and he failed to capitalize on his "strength" in foreign policy.


Comparing Obama to Bush is quite the stretch, sir.

and Obama has voted lock step with the way left wing of the democratic party 90% of the time, if not more......so that would to me seem to be more of the same...

now, let me point something out to you. you ever heard of the Great Society program of the 1960s pushed by LBJ? Any idea of of how many billion and billions and billions the US Govt spent to end poverty? All those old 1960s news reels of LBJ and leading Dems at the time heading into Appalachia, exploiting poverty to push this massive massive govt expenditure? Well, it worked well because democrats are still talking about the poverty we suppoosedly have today....a total failure that resulting a whole generation of people dependent upon the govt to solve their problems (see Hurricane Katrina). now Obama is pretty much wanting to do the same with billions of new social spending....now tell me, how is this change? were you alive when Jimmy Carter was president? Obama is a near clone to Carter. boy, the late 1970s were great years for the USA....I thing the word often thrown around to describe this period is "malaise"

http://www2.volstate.edu/geades/FinalDocs/1970s&beyond/malaise.htm

Obama isnt change, its just about repackaging the same old tired liberal policies that have failed year after year after year for the past 40 plus years...

[DroppinScience]

and Obama has voted lock step with the way left wing of the democratic party 90% of the time, if not more......so that would to me seem to be more of the same...

now, let me point something out to you. you ever heard of the Great Society program of the 1960s pushed by LBJ? Any idea of of how many billion and billions and billions the US Govt spent to end poverty? All those old 1960s news reels of LBJ and leading Dems at the time heading into Appalachia, exploiting poverty to push this massive massive govt expenditure? Well, it worked well because democrats are still talking about the poverty we suppoosedly have today....a total failure that resulting a whole generation of people dependent upon the govt to solve their problems (see Hurricane Katrina). now Obama is pretty much wanting to do the same with billions of new social spending....now tell me, how is this change? were you alive when Jimmy Carter was president? Obama is a near clone to Carter. boy, the late 1970s were great years for the USA....I thing the word often thrown around to describe this period is "malaise"

http://www2.volstate.edu/geades/FinalDocs/1970s&beyond/malaise.htm

Obama isnt change, its just about repackaging the same old tired liberal policies that have failed year after year after year for the past 40 plus years...

The Great Society was an excellent initiative (a sort of "New Deal Part II" if you will), but you and I are differing completely on why it didn't work the way that it should have. It was a little something called THE VIETNAM WAR. What The Great Society did was uplift minority populations in ways that were inconceivable beforehand (one example is literacy programs for Hispanic women, giving them access to education and making them employable). But at this very same time, LBJ was prosecuting a Vietnam War that was draining U.S. treasure more and more as the conflict plunged more and more into a quagmire. They actually diverted a lot of money from anti-poverty programs to war spending. And all that accomplished was napalming Vietnamese civilians and leaving impoverished Americans in the same spot they once were.

It really mystifies me when conservatives decry government involvement in improving or helping the lives of its citizens, yet seem to be completely fine with a cozy relationship between governments and corporations, leading to deregulation which then leads to the poor being exploited and being left even more poor than before.

It doesn't matter how many people try to pull up their bootstraps and help themselves (assuming they even have a boot in the first place), but there are just extreme cases where the government has got to step in. The Great Depression is one such example. If it were up to people like you, you'd have let the millions without homes and food starve to death during the '30s. You'd have been right there defending Hoover's wrongheaded policies. Everyone needs a helping hand when you're on the road to recovering from a catastrophe.

[saz]

(y)

The Great Society was an excellent initiative (a sort of "New Deal Part II" if you will), but you and I are differing completely on why it didn't work the way that it should have. It was a little something called THE VIETNAM WAR. What The Great Society did was uplift minority populations in ways that were inconceivable beforehand (one example is literacy programs for Hispanic women, giving them access to education and making them employable). But at this very same time, LBJ was prosecuting a Vietnam War that was draining U.S. treasure more and more as the conflict plunged more and more into a quagmire. They actually diverted a lot of money from anti-poverty programs to war spending. And all that accomplished was napalming Vietnamese civilians and leaving impoverished Americans in the same spot they once were.

It really mystifies me when conservatives decry government involvement in improving or helping the lives of its citizens, yet seem to be completely fine with a cozy relationship between governments and corporations, leading to deregulation which then leads to the poor being exploited and being left even more poor than before.

It doesn't matter how many people try to pull up their bootstraps and help themselves (assuming they even have a boot in the first place), but there are just extreme cases where the government has got to step in. The Great Depression is one such example. If it were up to people like you, you'd have let the millions without homes and food starve to death during the '30s. You'd have been right there defending Hoover's wrongheaded policies. Everyone needs a helping hand when you're on the road to recovering from a catastrophe.

the ol' obama is a liberal line is really old:

Corporate America Hearts Obama

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted April 30, 2008


Barack Obama's campaign message, filled with lofty promises of change and hope, is also filled with repeated reassurances to the corporate elite. Pick up a copy of Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope." The subtext is clear. It is a steady reminder to corporate America, a reminder bolstered by Obama's voting record, that corporations would have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency.

"Of course," he writes, "there are those within the Democratic Party who tend toward similar zealotry. But those who do have never come close to possessing the power of a Rove or a DeLay, the power to take over the party, fill it with loyalists, and enshrine some of their more radical ideas into law. The prevalence of regional, ethnic, and economic differences within the party, the electoral map and the structure of the Senate, the need to raise money from economic elites to finance elections -- all these things tend to prevent Democrats in office from straying too far from the center. In fact, I know very few elected Democrats who neatly fit the liberal caricature; the last I checked, John Kerry believes in maintaining the superiority of the U.S. military, Hillary Clinton believes in the virtues of capitalism, and just about every member of the Congressional Black Caucus believes Jesus Christ died for his or her sins."

He praises the "recognizably progressive" Bill Clinton, whose disastrous welfare reform (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060829_robert_scheer_clinton_welfare/) he lauds, for showing that "government spending and regulation could, if properly designed, serve as vital ingredients and not inhibitors to economic growth, and how markets and fiscal discipline could help promote social justice. He recognized that not only societal responsibility but personal responsibility was needed to combat poverty." Obama excoriates "those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100 percent from the liberal interest groups. But these efforts seem exhausted, a constant game of defense, bereft of energy and new ideas needed to address the changing circumstances of globalization or a stubbornly isolated inner city." (asshole)

The same Beltway lobbyists, corporate donors and public relations firms, the same weapons manufacturers, defense contractors, nuclear power companies and Wall Street interests that give Clinton and John McCain money, give Obama money. They happen, in fact, to give Obama more. And the corporate state, which is carrying out a coup d'état in slow motion, believes it will prosper in Obama's hands. If not, he would not be a viable candidate.

There have been some important investigations into Obama's links with major corporations, including Ken Silverstein's November 2006 (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275) article "Barack Obama Inc: The Birth of a Washington Machine" in Harper's magazine. Newsweek has also detailed many of Obama's major corporate contributors. Obama's Leadership PAC includes John Gorman of Texas-based Tejas Securities, a major supporter of Senate Democrats as well as the Bush presidential campaigns. It includes Winston & Strawn, the Chicago-based law and lobbying firm. It also includes the corporate law firms Kirkland & Ellis, and Skadden, Arps, where four attorneys are fundraisers for Obama as well as donors. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Henry Crown and Co., an investment firm that has stakes in industries ranging from telecommunications to defense, are all funding the Illinois senator.

Individual contributors to Obama come from major lobbyist groups such as those of Jeffrey Peck (whose clients include MasterCard, the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) and Rich Tarplin (Chevron, the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association of Manufacturers). Exelon, a leading nuclear plant operator, based in Illinois, is a long-time donor to the Obama campaign. Exelon executives and employees have contributed at least $227,000 to Obama's campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fundraisers. Obama has also accepted more than $213,000 from individuals (and their spouses) who work for companies in the oil and gas industry, and two of Obama's bundlers are senior oil company executives who have raised between $50,000 and $100,000. I could go on, but you get the point.


Obama, as you will see if you examine his voting record, has repeatedly rewarded those who reward him:


• As a senator he has promoted nuclear energy as "green." He has been lauded by the nuclear power industry, which is determined to resume building nuclear power plants across the country.

• He has voted to continue to fund the Iraq war. He opposed Rep. John Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal.

• He refused to join the 13 senators who voted against confirming Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state.

• He voted in July 2005 to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

• He did not support an amendment that was part of a bankruptcy bill that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent.

• He opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872.

• He did not support the single-payer health care bill HR 676, sponsored by Reps. Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers.

• He supports the death penalty.

• He worked tirelessly in the Senate in 2005 to pass a class-action "reform" bill that was part of a large lobbying effort by financial firms, which make up Obama's second-biggest single bloc of donors. The law, with the Orwellian title the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits. This has long been a cherished goal of large corporations as well as the Bush administration. It effectively denies redress in many of the courts where these cases have a chance of defying powerful corporate challenges. It moves these cases into corporate-friendly federal courts dominated by Republican judges. Even Hillary Clinton voted against this naked effort to allow corporations to carry out flagrant discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour violations.

• Obama likes to paint himself as an opponent of the war. He reminds voters of his one -- and only one -- speech opposing it. But he swiftly changed his mind. Obama told the Chicago Tribune on July 27, 2004, that "there's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." Obama added that he "now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation, a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration." Obama wants to leave an estimated 50,000 troops in Iraq to protect our superbases and the Green Zone, our imperial city, to fight terrorism, and to train Iraqi forces.

• Obama's policy director is Karen Kornbluh, who as a senior aide to Robert Rubin, the head of the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration, pushed through NAFTA and other free-trade policies that unleashed the assault on organized labor and devastated the country's manufacturing sector. And Obama's senior economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, who teaches economics at the University of Chicago, privately assured Canada's consul general in Chicago in February that Obama's NAFTA-bashing "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans," according to a leaked memo of the meeting.

• Most of Obama's senior advisers, including Penny Pritzker, a member of one of America's richest families and the current finance chair of the campaign, have a long history of oiling the government apparatus for corporate interests and personal enrichment. Pritzker was the chair of Superior Bank of Chicago. The bank collapsed in 2001 with over $1 billion in insured and uninsured deposits, and 1,406 people lost nearly all their savings. The bank owners, who fabricated profit reports, made much of their money promoting risky subprime home mortgages. Those around Obama are as wedded to corporate interests as those around Clinton and McCain.

link (http://www.alternet.org/election08/83890/?page=2)

[QueenAdrock]

Obama was exposed for what he is, an empty suit. How many times did he utter "uh" "um" "ah" "and and" etc?

They're common to say when you're thinking of what you plan to say next. I don't see what that has to do with anything. He still had a powerful voice, a good message, looked in the camera (and at his running mate, too, which is more than I can say for McCain) to address the American people, etc. He's a great speaker, and yes, it's expected that when things are off-the-cuff, people will insert 'ums' and 'ahs' into their speech. People aren't expected to have what they say memorized. However, I really don't see how that makes him an empty suit. If anything, it makes him more human.

Either way, it's interesting that you say that Obama is the " just about repackaging the same old tired liberal policies that have failed year after year after year for the past 40 plus years...". How do you feel about McCain? He's voted 95% of the time with Bush the past year, and quite a bit of the time before that, too. I don't think there's an intelligent person alive who can say that George W. Bush's policies haven't failed year after year. The country's in the shitter, and McCain votes with Bush a TON of the time. How do you feel about their "old tired conservative policies," then?

and Obama has voted lock step with the way left wing of the democratic party 90% of the time, if not more......so that would to me seem to be more of the same...

What is the "way left wing" in your opinion? You mean people like Bernie Sanders, the socialist? He's an independent, so he's not Democrat...though he does caucus with them. Who exactly is so left wing? Because I haven't seen them, but I sure as shit would like to vote for them.

Either way, liberal policies haven't been in place, so, no, it would not be more of the same. The country has been conservative for the past 8 years, ruled by right-wing Republicans. In the past two years, the Democrats have held a slim majority in Congress, and haven't done much. So if Obama gets done the shit he's saying, that'd be extremely different than what you're seeing today.

[valvano]

Either way, liberal policies haven't been in place, so, no, it would not be more of the same. The country has been conservative for the past 8 years, ruled by right-wing Republicans. In the past two years, the Democrats have held a slim majority in Congress, and haven't done much. So if Obama gets done the shit he's saying, that'd be extremely different than what you're seeing today.

I havent been on the BBMB in well over a few years and I see Queenie is still spouting out the same ole BS (to quote a BB LP) good win over Clemson today BTW

How many of the past 50 years have Democrats controlled the House and Representative and the US Senate? I'd say 90% of the time, give a take a few percentage points. You would think after all those years some of the problems they always rally about would have been solved but nope, still the same bitching and moaning.

What change is Obama about?
Raising taxes vs lowering taxes ? Who is Obama to say that a certain percentage of the population makes too much money? Or any politician for that matter. I thought the US was the land of opportunity, not the land were those who chose not to take advantage of opportunity gets to profit via redistribution of wealth via govt programs from those who do. "tax cuts for 95% of the population'....well about 40% of the population pays little to know income taxes...so how are they going to get a tax break? thats like GM giving rebate checks to people who dont buy GM made cars...ridiculous. I've never seen poor folks hire maids, or buy yauchts, or invest in real estate using their tax cuts (i.e. put capital back in the the market)...but rich folks sure do...the last thing we need now with the credit crunch is for the fed govt to take EVEN MORE CAPITAL out of the hands of the private sector and handing it over to the fed govt.

Expansion of US Govt? Bush has expanding the Govt more so than any other Pres has since LBJ...and we are in the crapper as you state...so Obama and his govt run this and govt controlled that is going to require what....even more govt expansion? He couldnt even name 1 thing he would cut when pressed last night.

The war in Iraq? You seriously believe he will just pull up stakes and get out of there??? No changes coming there.

So what exactly is he going to change? Uh, uh, um, um, and , and , um
oh, oh, um, uh,....but he does agree a lot with McCain as he admitted last night...

[QueenAdrock]

I don't go to Maryland anymore, actually. I'm getting my Master's degree up in Canada, land of the TRULY free. I no longer have to choose my health over other necessities, I get to see my gay friends get engaged and married, and I don't have to be worried about what I check out at a library or what I say on my phone. If only there was a way we could get America on that track too....

Okay, so I get it. You hate Obama. Whatever, anything I say you'll just find some way to refute. I'm sick of getting in dead-end arguments with conservatives, if you don't want to listen to something, you won't. You're set in your ways, I get it.

But - if you think Obama won't change anything (including the expansion of government that happened under Bush), are you voting McCain? And how can you do so, in good conscious, when you know that he's voted with the president SO highly? Do you honestly think he's going to change anything, and if so, what will he change and what makes you think so?

I'd still also like to know who in the Democratic party you consider to be "way left wing," because I find that pretty funny.

[saz]

How many of the past 50 years have Democrats controlled the House and Representative and the US Senate? I'd say 90% of the time, give a take a few percentage points. You would think after all those years some of the problems they always rally about would have been solved but nope, still the same bitching and moaning.

ditto the same bitching and moaning from republicans. they started all of the problems they're currently complaining about. the national debt and budget deficits exploded under reagan, as he saw it fit to rape and cut the hell out of social programs which truly benefited the disadvantaged, while spending ridiculous, astronomical amounts on defence and the military. he also had a republican senate until '86 that was in lockstep with his outlandish spending agenda. then came bush one, and then a conservative democrat like clinton, who with a republican house and senate, gutted welfare, introduced nafta, and further deregulated the banks. then of course dubya and more even more astronomical spending: approximately three trillion for the iraq war, tax cuts that mainly benefitted the wealthy during a war, plus other initiatives like the radical expansion of the government with the department of homeland security, the patriot act, billions of taxpayer dollars to bail out wall street, and of course plenty of pork barrel projects with the previous republican house and senate, which got booted out in '06.

medicare, social security, the civil rights act, the voting rights act etc and other programs and legislation cherished by the american people all came about thanks to progressive dems who had balls, and sensible, moderate and practical republicans: both of which are an extremely rare if almost extinct breed these days.

[RobMoney$]

I'm sorry. I'm a little confused, I thought you were a McCain supporter; at least that is what your "So you want Change?" thread led me to believe.





some of the contents of your thread:

I don't agree with John Mc Cain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America, and there's a huge difference.

Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate in 1982

Just pointing out an incosistency as I see it. Feel free to clarify.

Obama is a fraud. I've been shouting it from the figuritive rooftops of this forum since the primaries.
I was just playing the sarcasm game with Bob. Don't mind me acting a fool. I'm voting for McCain.

[valvano]

I don't go to Maryland anymore, actually. I'm getting my Master's degree up in Canada, land of the TRULY free. I no longer have to choose my health over other necessities, I get to see my gay friends get engaged and married, and I don't have to be worried about what I check out at a library or what I say on my phone. If only there was a way we could get America on that track too....

Okay, so I get it. You hate Obama. Whatever, anything I say you'll just find some way to refute. I'm sick of getting in dead-end arguments with conservatives, if you don't want to listen to something, you won't. You're set in your ways, I get it.

But - if you think Obama won't change anything (including the expansion of government that happened under Bush), are you voting McCain? And how can you do so, in good conscious, when you know that he's voted with the president SO highly? Do you honestly think he's going to change anything, and if so, what will he change and what makes you think so?

I'd still also like to know who in the Democratic party you consider to be "way left wing," because I find that pretty funny.

hope you dont get sick up there, i hear the time period you have to wait to see a specialist is pretty long....

I look at it like this....when playing cards, you'd like to know the cards you are being dealt before hand...or at a least minimize your risk. obama....few years in the senate, no real record..again just an empty suit surrounded with a bunch of advsisors... mccain, he at least has a record...some good (work on cutting fed spending), some bad (his failed attempts to legalize illegal aliens, his earlier opposition to bush tax cuts)...but at least you have a good idea of the cards you will be dealt...even hillary clinton you had an idea of the cards you would be dealt....i'm going for the candidate that you have a better chance of knowing what you getting into with vs. the guy with not much record...i'm not ready to play russian roulette with our nations future...

[ToucanSpam]

hope you dont get sick up there, i hear the time period you have to wait to see a specialist is pretty long....

I've lived in Canada my entire life and I can say with no problem that this is a huge load of shit, a lot like the other things you've said in this thread.

[valvano]

I've lived in Canada my entire life and I can say with no problem that this is a huge load of shit, a lot like the other things you've said in this thread.

your govt run media wouldnt lie to you would it? :eek:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/01/15/waittimes-study.html?ref=rss

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/fraser-report.html?ref=rss

according to your public media corp, you are the one that is spouting a huge load of shit...

[ericg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5WiE6MnmCM

[Bob]

your govt run media wouldnt lie to you would it? :eek:

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/01/15/waittimes-study.html?ref=rss

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/fraser-report.html?ref=rss

according to your public media corp, you are the one that is spouting a huge load of shit...

you're right man, the WHO ranks canada's health system as a pitiful #30 in the world; that's worse than saudi arabia, cyprus, the united arab emirates, colombia, oman, morocco...shameful, canada's healthcare system

[Bob]

oh but hang on, US is 37. that's 2 better than cuba

[yeahwho]

you know, back in High School Guys used to skip out on debates to help out multi-billion dollar institutions all the time, it was no big deal. So this was a pleasant debate, the two of them together after helping out with the collapse and having that chit chat with the President.

Such a sweet time in history.

[Documad]

It's funny, but I thought Obama won the debate. I guess that's because he did what I wanted him to do. Obama was much better than I expected. I thought McCain looked out of touch and desperate (naming as many world leaders and countries as possible but without saying anything he would do differently than Bush in the future). And this was the debate McCain was supposed to win because it's the only foreign policy one.

Many commentators disagreed with me (as did most of you folk, I guess), so I feel a big out of it. It wouldn't be the first time I was completely out of touch.

[Dorothy Wood]

i'm not ready to play russian roulette with our nations future...

yeah, you seem more ready to lead it straight to the gallows.


I'm curious, since you seem to be a self made man who took advantage of opportunities that others were obviously too stupid/weak to get, what would happen to you if say a tornado took down your house? what if you or a family member were to suffer some kind of catastrophic illness leading to expensive medical bills that your insurance decided to stop paying for?

would you be alright? if so why? how did you get to be such a self made man? was it all perfectly calculated due to your high intelligence and hard work? was any of it luck? or maybe you're riding on the coattails of family money?


not everyone can "make it", and if you think it's because they would if they deserved to, then you're a jerk. and you don't realize that as a civilized society we need to care for all of our members, as it benefits us all to progress as a human race.

so tell me, how'd your life get so great and how is it that you think other people are stupid because they aren't just like you?