The Presidential Debate- Who won?

[JHuschke]

For a moment, forget whether you are a republican or a democrat, and who honestly won the debate?

[UnderseaLcpl]

This is something of a redundant thread, but my answer remains the same

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=142535

[Task Force]

McCain, and Obama are kind of strange in my opinion.:hmm: In reality, I think they are both incompitent.:yep:
Ya know now that I think about it. This poll should have a nither option. I think nither will be a good president.

[Zachstar]

Obama

Even if you are a repub you have to admit that Obama took away a BIG McCain chance to gain the lead today and the remaining debates will only mean disaster.

[1480]

Obama

Even if you are a repub you have to admit that Obama took away a BIG McCain chance to gain the lead today and the remaining debates will only mean disaster.

Obama is biracial man who threw the woman that raised him (his grandmother) under the bus stating:

"I can no more disown (the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.) than I can disown my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."

This bigot will toss the woman who gave her all to raise him under the bus to get himself elected. Wright is a racist who earns money from making false statements about whites and America, and still, people want to vote for BHO....

[Platapus]

I think it was more a tie.

Both McCain and Obama came out strong. Each one kinda fudged some facts, but each was able to state their positions clearly.

I think that McCain was a bit more nasty but it was a debate after all.
I think that Obama spent too much time talking about the past and not the future.

I thought some of the questions about the current economic issue were a bit unfair as Obama clearly stated that neither of them has seen the final draft because there is no one single final draft. It is still being worked on.

But overall, I don't think either candidate messed up or especially shined.

It was a good first debate. I think it was a tie.

Now that both sides have shot their main political loads, let's see what they will talk about in the next debate. The second debate may give more information than the first.

Of course the VP debate will be popular just for the entertainment value. I imagine more people will watch that train wreck than watched this debate. :yep:

[Platapus]

"I can no more disown (the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.) than I can disown my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."



And how is this "throwing her under the bus" (what ever that means).

It sounds more like being totally honest. I loved my Grand Parents. My grandfather was a racist. I did not like him being a racist but I still loved him as my grandfather. He was a good hard working man who took care of his family in very very hard times.

But he made disparaging remarks about Italians (especially catholic Italians). But he still was my grandfather. He was not perfect, nor did I agree with everything he said.

Did I just throw my grandfather "under the bus"?

Obama is talking about how much his grandmother loved him but that she confessed an irrational fear and made racial remarks. But despite these facts, he loved her and respected her.

Honesty about his grandmother. Is this really bad?

Should he have lied about his grandmother? Is that what you wanted?

[Jimbuna]

I'm not a US citizen and don't claim to understand everything about US politics, but from what I saw on TV you folk have as dire a choice of leaders as we do in the UK. :nope:

[Digital_Trucker]

I learned quite a bit about both men when they were introduced. McCain came out looking at Obama and Obama came out looking at the crowd and waving. They both stretched facts (and maybe invented a few). They both had good and bad points. Obama admitted on several occasions that he agreed with McCain. For an "educated man" Obama sure says "we gotta" and "uh" a lot. Who spoke the most calmly during the entire debate and who got nervous and rattled and stammered? Obama blew it, IMHO.

[Task Force]

I'm not a US citizen and don't claim to understand everything about US politics, but from what I saw on TV you folk have as dire a choice of leaders as we do in the UK. :nope:
In my opinion... You Got it.:rotfl:

[Kapt Z]

"I can no more disown (the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.) than I can disown my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."



And how is this "throwing her under the bus" (what ever that means).

It sounds more like being totally honest. I loved my Grand Parents. My grandfather was a racist. I did not like him being a racist but I still loved him as my grandfather. He was a good hard working man who took care of his family in very very hard times.

But he made disparaging remarks about Italians (especially catholic Italians). But he still was my grandfather. He was not perfect, nor did I agree with everything he said.

Did I just throw my grandfather "under the bus"?

Obama is talking about how much his grandmother loved him but that she confessed an irrational fear and made racial remarks. But despite these facts, he loved her and respected her.

Honesty about his grandmother. Is this really bad?

Should he have lied about his grandmother? Is that what you wanted?

I think Obama's speech was the best one I have heard in a long time. Certainly the most honest talk about race relations in years. We need a lot more of that in this country.

[Kapt Z]

Oh, I didn't watch the debate. Sounds like it was a tie from the bits I picked up. Not suprising. I'll try and see the next one. The VP debate should be more interesting. :hmm:

[geetrue]

Remember George Bush lost the first two debates with Senator Kerry four years ago and then took an agressive, get in your face, stance for the third debate, winning the debate and then winning the election by over 3,000,000 votes the largest winning percentage in American election history. :yep:

McCain's voice cracked a couple of times, but I think he did well to keep pounding on the subject that Obama is not ready to take the helm of a country this big.

Obama will become a better senator after this election so he can have a better chance in 2012 with at least four more years of experience he should do much better (not just in the polls, but in the actual race), but so will Mrs Clinton all the while saying, "Obama should've chose me for a running mate"

[SimNut]

I think Obama won.

[SteamWake]

Just a stage show anyhow.

Who 'won' seems to depend on which network you were listening to at the time.

Personally I dident watch most of it so I dident vote.

[antikristuseke]

From what i saw they seemed more intent to fling **** at eachother than engage in any debate.

[Stealth Hunter]

Obama. He brought up quite a few good points about McCain and all Old John could do was stand there and smile like he was innocent. I really had to laugh on his point about McCain appearing at 90% of Bush's speeches.

Barack's speech was certainly one of the best presidential debate speeches I've heard in a while. I must agree with you on that point, Kapt Z.

The vice presidential debates should be a blast. I wonder how people will look at Palin after October 3rd.:hmm: There is no way Biden can lose.

Obama admitted on several occasions that he agreed with McCain.

So? McCain stood there and sucked up all the praise he could because he needs it. Things are not looking too good for him at the moment.

For an "educated man" Obama sure says "we gotta" and "uh" a lot.

And once again, so? McCain kept stuttering in the second half. You were one of those nitpicks who got upset with Obama when he didn't wear an American flag pin on his jacket, weren't you?

Who spoke the most calmly during the entire debate and who got nervous and rattled and stammered?

John spoke softly, but one of the things that's said about leaders (studies supposedly show this) is that they need a commanding and loud voice and very natural body movement when speaking. That's where Obama's strength showed during the speech. He's a good speaker, even if he sometimes stammers. Harry S. Truman stammered a lot and wasn't a very professional speaker (not conventional, anyway), but he was one of the best presidents the United States has ever had.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion, IMO. I'll just be happy when it all stops. The news has gotten even more repetitive now than it has been in the past, and all they ever talk about is "Did this candidate do this right?" and "Did this candidate do something wrong?". Then they bring this "experts" on to voice their opinions, and they really aren't sure of anything, but they yak and yak on and on about what they think of what was said and what should have been said...

[Stealth Hunter]

Remember George Bush lost the first two debates with Senator Kerry four years ago and then took an agressive, get in your face, stance for the third debate, winning the debate and then winning the election by over 3,000,000 votes the largest winning percentage in American election history. :yep:

Even then, Bush shouldn't have been president to begin with. In the 2000 election, Al Gore beat George Bush in the popular vote, WITH Florida added into the equation (and we now know that Gore also won Florida, but thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling when Gore asked for a recount, Bush became president). It should be a simple case of ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, not this electoral system crap.:nope:

McCain's voice cracked a couple of times, but I think he did well to keep pounding on the subject that Obama is not ready to take the helm of a country this big.

Obama by himself... I don't think he would be ready to take the helm. THANKFULLY, he chose Biden as his VP, and Joe Biden is a man with experience in politics. Now with that said, I think McCain COULD run the country, but I don't think he'd run it well, especially with that attitude of his of "WE'RE STILL NUMBER 1!". And that's why I'm voting for Obama.

More importantly, if McCain died in office, what about Palin? She'd become president and I don't think she was even a competent MAYOR after reading more about her.

I'll definitely be tuning into the VP debates.

Obama will become a better senator after this election so he can have a better chance in 2012 with at least four more years of experience he should do much better (not just in the polls, but in the actual race), but so will Mrs Clinton all the while saying, "Obama should've chose me for a running mate"

I personally don't believe polls in magazines and on TV about the nominees mean much, but after looking around, I have noticed a lot of people on SubSim do. With that said, Obama is beating McCain by 3% in the approval census conducted last night by CNN (Obama has a 48% approval rate; McCain has a 45% approval rate). So that's something for you guys to think about.

[Digital_Trucker]

You were one of those nitpicks who got upset with Obama when he didn't wear an American flag pin on his jacket, weren't you?

Nope, I don't get anywhere near as upset about the flag pin on the jacket as I do about not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.

I noticed nothing in your comment about the actions of the two when they were first introduced. Mc Cain did the smart thing (keeping his eye on his enemy) while Obama played to the crowd, like the rock-star that he pretends to be.

BTW My comments regarding Obamas stammering and sputtering weren't because they are bad speaking habits, but that they are habits that he doesn't exhibit when he has a script or a teleprompter. The man can speak, until he doesn't have a script. Unfotunately, the job he's seeking doesn't have a script.

[Stealth Hunter]

Nope, I don't get anywhere near as upset about the flag pin on the jacket as I do about not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.

It's the little details that you people like to talk about, that's my point. I noticed nobody in this thread has mentioned McCain's little affair with David Letterman.:hmm:

I noticed nothing in your comment about the actions of the two when they were first introduced. Mc Cain did the smart thing (keeping his eye on his enemy)

That sent the message (to me, anyway) that he was more concerned about debating with Obama than he was with addressing the audience. He didn't, to put it short, acknowledge appreciation for them showing up.

BTW My comments regarding Obamas stammering and sputtering weren't because they are bad speaking habits, but that they are habits that he doesn't exhibit when he has a script or a teleprompter.

OK, but to be fair, McCain has a habit of putting too much emphasis (I think) on sentences when he speaks in political ads.

The man can speak, until he doesn't have a script. Unfotunately, the job he's seeking doesn't have a script.

Like I said, Harry Truman was no different. When he spoke on the radio, he didn't stutter or stammer. When he spoke in debates or gave speeches, he did stutter. Yet through and through, he was a great president.

[geetrue]

The vice presidential debates should be a blast. I wonder how people will look at Palin after October 3rd.:hmm: There is no way Biden can lose.


I do not agree :down:

Famous last words to remember soon and very soon ... women have a way of thinking that we men have not yet been able to understand.

[RickC Sniper]

People seem to be seeing what thay want to see.

Those that favored Obama before the debate think he won the debate, or at least held his own in a debate where the topic favored McCain.

Those that favored McCain before the debate feel he won the debate, often putting Obama on the defensive.

[Digital_Trucker]

Nope, I don't get anywhere near as upset about the flag pin on the jacket as I do about not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.

It's the little details that you people like to talk about, that's my point. I noticed nobody in this thread has mentioned McCain's little affair with David Letterman.:hmm:


What does David Letterman have to do with the debate? And, by the way, who are "you people"? People who notice "little things" like signs of lack of respect for their country? Quite often, you can tell more about an individual by the "little things" than by the crap that comes out of their mouths.

I noticed nothing in your comment about the actions of the two when they were first introduced. Mc Cain did the smart thing (keeping his eye on his enemy)
That sent the message (to me, anyway) that he was more concerned about debating with Obama than he was with addressing the audience. He didn't, to put it short, acknowledge appreciation for them showing up.
Excuse me, but shouldn't he have been more concerned with debating Obama than playing up to the crowd? Wasn't that what the two were there for, to debate? Do you seriously believe that, by waving to the crowd as soon as he stepped on stage, Obama was thanking them for being there? Debates aren't about addressing the audience, debates are about addressing the questions.

[RickC Sniper]

Obama by himself... I don't think he would be ready to take the helm. THANKFULLY, he chose Biden as his VP, and Joe Biden is a man with experience in politics. Now with that said, I think McCain COULD run the country, but I don't think he'd run it well, especially with that attitude of his of "WE'RE STILL NUMBER 1!". And that's why I'm voting for Obama.



When is the last time a vice president was actually active in running the country?

They have less input than any cabinate member.

[geetrue]

Obama by himself... I don't think he would be ready to take the helm. THANKFULLY, he chose Biden as his VP, and Joe Biden is a man with experience in politics. Now with that said, I think McCain COULD run the country, but I don't think he'd run it well, especially with that attitude of his of "WE'RE STILL NUMBER 1!". And that's why I'm voting for Obama.


When is the last time a vice president was actually active in running the country?

They have less input than any cabinate member.

Excuse me! Vice President Chenny may be in need of a good attorney or a presidential pardon after he leaves office. :hmm:

[OneToughHerring]

Lot of things have been going Obama's way lately. The economy, the hurricanes, Afghanistan flaring up, etc... Kinda makes me think what things are for McCain? But then I remember the Bush - Kerry - election and understand that in US anything can happen and when even a dweeb like Bush can be re-elected why couldn't McCain.

Oh yea, the surge in Iraq. Maybe that could be seen as going for McCain, or at least he was very happy to trump that point in the debate. Although as someone from outside USA I really can't understand how using Iraq could at this stage work as a pro-issue for the candidate of the party that messed up the place from the beginning. If I was McCain I would just be quiet about Iraq and talk about tax-cuts.

[MothBalls]

When is the last time a vice president was actually active in running the country?

August 9, 1974 - VP Gerald Ford became the President when Nixon resigned.
November 22, 1963 - LBJ became the President when JFK was assassinated.

I don't know about you but I don't think a hockey mom should be second in line to fix our current situation and lead us into the future, especially when the potential president is so old he farts dust.

[XabbaRus]

I just want it to be all over so I know whether to dig up my back garden and build a bomb shelter....

[RickC Sniper]

Sure, they are in line to become president.

But the suggestion was made that the VP choice by Obama makes up for his lack of experience.

[Stealth Hunter]

What does David Letterman have to do with the debate? And, by the way, who are "you people"? People who notice "little things" like signs of lack of respect for their country? Quite often, you can tell more about an individual by the "little things" than by the crap that comes out of their mouths.

Letterman didn't have anything to do with the debate, but didn't you hear the story about McCain cancelling his appearance on Letterman's show? He claimed it was because he had to return to Washington to help fight the financial crisis of the country. However, he did an interview with CBS and did not return to D.C.

The point: McCain is not as honorable as he claims to be.

And by "you people" I'm referring to the people who oppose Barack and everything he says (the ones who are totally dedicated to McCain; now before you call me a hypocrite, I'm not totally dedicated to Obama).

How is not wearing a pin the size of a dime on your jacket lack of respect for the country? Jesus, man... he just didn't want to wear one. Who cares? And as far as judgement on him goes by the little details, have you even met the man?

Excuse me, but shouldn't he have been more concerned with debating Obama than playing up to the crowd? Wasn't that what the two were there for, to debate? Do you seriously believe that, by waving to the crowd as soon as he stepped on stage, Obama was thanking them for being there? Debates aren't about addressing the audience, debates are about addressing the questions.

He should have been concerned about both, and he was only concerned with the debate. Obama at least made ONE small address to the audience and then went along with the debate.

Well how do you know he wasn't thanking them for being there? It's only polite to address those who have come to see you.

Debates are about both the audience and the questions. Remember, it's the audience that will be voting for you in the end. And I don't just mean the audience in the auditorium. I mean the true audience: the people who have tuned in on their TV sets to watch the debates and candidates stand and give their opinions.

I do not agree :down:

Famous last words to remember soon and very soon ... women have a way of thinking that we men have not yet been able to understand.

Lol, but setting humor aside, Palin really seems to have no idea what she's doing. See here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/24/eveningnews/main4476173.shtml


COURIC: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?


PALIN: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie--that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

PALIN: He's also known as the maverick though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about--the need to reform government.

COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?

PALIN: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

We'll just see if I'm right or if you're right. Not too far off now.

When is the last time a vice president was actually active in running the country?

They have less input than any cabinate member.

What, do you think that the president NEVER consults the vice president?

Bush has had help from Cheney on matters before regarding foreign policy and the economy. He's admitted it in interviews. It's not like they don't do a damn thing together.

And thank you, Moth, for posting those facts.

[Hylander_1314]

Who won the debate? Bugs Bunny. At least it gives me a reason to laugh!

[Takeda Shingen]

When is the last time a vice president was actually active in running the country?

They have less input than any cabinate member.

Excuse me! Vice President Chenny may be in need of a good attorney or a presidential pardon after he leaves office. :hmm:

Beat me to it.

[Stealth Hunter]

I lol'd.

[Task Force]

I just want it to be all over so I know whether to dig up my back garden and build a bomb shelter....

Anychance you might have any left over materials...:rotfl:

[Hylander_1314]

But Joe Biden could use some tips in American History. Listening to the radio talkshows yesterday, and heard him saying something to the effect that FDR was president when the crash of 29 occurred, and that he made a television appearence / speech, to calm the country?

If FDR had been president during the crash of 29, I doubt he would have been elected to the presidency 4 times. And I think the openning speech by Adolf Hitler during the 1936 Olympics in Berlin was the first or one of the first "television" broadcasts, or use of that technology.

[Stealth Hunter]

But Joe Biden could use some tips in American History. Listening to the radio talkshows yesterday, and heard him saying something to the effect that FDR was president when the crash of 29 occurred, and that he made a television appearence / speech, to calm the country?

If FDR had been president during the crash of 29, I doubt he would have been elected to the presidency 4 times. And I think the openning speech by Adolf Hitler during the 1936 Olympics in Berlin was the first or one of the first "television" broadcasts, or use of that technology.

Thankfully Biden will be dealing with current affairs.:up:

As a note to those who are a little less enlightened on American history, it was the 31st president of the United States, Herbert Hoover of the Republican Party, who was president during the Great Depression. A loathsome politician indeed.

Wouldn't it be ironic if our current market crashed in October? It would be "Black Tuesday" all over again.

Have you got a video or news article with Biden saying that? I'd love to read more about it. Reminds me of how President Bush (the current Bush; not Old Man Bush) couldn't spell "Connecticut", the state he was born in:

http://www.hermanmulder.nl%20(weblog)www.equator-principles.com/layout1.php?event=873&topic=

[Digital_Trucker]

What does David Letterman have to do with the debate? And, by the way, who are "you people"? People who notice "little things" like signs of lack of respect for their country? Quite often, you can tell more about an individual by the "little things" than by the crap that comes out of their mouths.
Letterman didn't have anything to do with the debate, but didn't you hear the story about McCain cancelling his appearance on Letterman's show? He claimed it was because he had to return to Washington to help fight the financial crisis of the country. However, he did an interview with CBS and did not return to D.C.

The point: McCain is not as honorable as he claims to be.
Of course, I saw what McCain did to Letterman and agree that it wasn't a real smart move on his part.



And by "you people" I'm referring to the people who oppose Barack and everything he says (the ones who are totally dedicated to McCain; now before you call me a hypocrite, I'm not totally dedicated to Obama).
Well, good then you weren't demeaning me when you said "you people" because I don't oppose everything Barry says and am not totally dedicated to McCain.

How is not wearing a pin the size of a dime on your jacket lack of respect for the country? Jesus, man... he just didn't want to wear one. Who cares? And as far as judgement on him goes by the little details, have you even met the man?
Again, you ass-u-me that I was talking about the stupid pin. I'm talking about his seeming lack of ability to pay attention, put his hand over his heart or face the flag when the National Anthem is being played. It's one of those "little things" that, to me, signify a respect for your country. I suppose I shouldn't care about the little things since they don't seem to mean much to the average "citizen" any more, anyway, as evidenced by the numbers of people picking their noses, scratching their asses and generally being bored during the anthem at sporting events.

Have I even met the man? Nope, can't say that I've had the pleasure of meeting any Presidential candidates. I have read his voting record which tells me far more than meeting the man could ever tell me. I can listen to his rhetoric without substance and learn far more than I would ever learn from meeting the man.

I'm going to assume that you've met the man and are impressed with him. Good for you:up:

Excuse me, but shouldn't he have been more concerned with debating Obama than playing up to the crowd? Wasn't that what the two were there for, to debate? Do you seriously believe that, by waving to the crowd as soon as he stepped on stage, Obama was thanking them for being there? Debates aren't about addressing the audience, debates are about addressing the questions.
He should have been concerned about both, and he was only concerned with the debate. Obama at least made ONE small address to the audience and then went along with the debate.

Well how do you know he wasn't thanking them for being there? It's only polite to address those who have come to see you.

Debates are about both the audience and the questions. Remember, it's the audience that will be voting for you in the end. And I don't just mean the audience in the auditorium. I mean the true audience: the people who have tuned in on their TV sets to watch the debates and candidates stand and give their opinions.
Neither of us knows, without a doubt, what the man was thinking when he walked on stage. I have my ideas, based on observing the man, as do you. Our observations are most certainly different.

[Stealth Hunter]

Of course, I saw what McCain did to Letterman and agree that it wasn't a real smart move on his part.

It was a jackass move, too.

Again, you ass-u-me that I was talking about the stupid pin. I'm talking about his seeming lack of ability to pay attention, put his hand over his heart or face the flag when the National Anthem is being played.

But is that really a crime? Should the man be shot for it? People treated it like it was a serious offense right after it occured.

It's one of those "little things" that, to me, signify a respect for your country. I suppose I shouldn't care about the little things since they don't seem to mean much to the average "citizen" any more, anyway, as evidenced by the numbers of people picking their noses, scratching their asses and generally being bored during the anthem at sporting events.

Well, it is respectful if you do go along with the usual ritual, but it's not that big of a deal if he chooses not to.

And with all the patriotic crap going on, it does get repetitive after a while. All these fruity little names that they give plans and operations (like "OPERATION EAGLE SPIRIT" and all that droll) bugs the hell out of me.

I have read his voting record which tells me far more than meeting the man could ever tell me. I can listen to his rhetoric without substance and learn far more than I would ever learn from meeting the man.

I can agree on voting records. With that said, McCain's record is the reason why I'm not voting for him (that and he supported Bush in the Iraq War).

I'm going to assume that you've met the man and are impressed with him.

I listened to him speak in Columbia, Missouri, but that's as close as I got. I've always wondered how some of those people in the front row get such great seats. I'd imagine it has something to do with how much money they contributed but oh well.

Neither of us knows, without a doubt, what the man was thinking when he walked on stage. I have my ideas, based on observing the man, as do you. Our observations are most certainly different.

Indeed. It will all be made clear in November.

[antikristuseke]

I just want it to be all over so I know whether to dig up my back garden and build a bomb shelter....

Anychance you might have any left over materials...:rotfl:

Duck and cover you muttpes, i mean really, has the government not tought you anything?:doh:

[Digital_Trucker]

Indeed. It will all be made clear in November.

:rotfl:Nothing will be any clearer in November than it is now. All we'll know (maybe) is who got elected. Only time will tell what that means no matter who is elected.

[Task Force]

I just want it to be all over so I know whether to dig up my back garden and build a bomb shelter....

Anychance you might have any left over materials...:rotfl:

Duck and cover you muttpes, i mean really, has the government not tought you anything?:doh:

Hows that gonna save ya from radiation, I think id rather be killed quickly than have my cells slowly die.:huh:

[Onkel Neal]

I support McCain, so I am biased. From what I saw of the debate, Obama strikes me as out of his element. He repeats generic talking points that basically mean "We have to fix everything". McCain has been a senator for 20 years, he actually knows how to do these things. He knows what he is talking about. Obama is one of the most inexperienced, junior senators, a scant 2 years of experience. He is a good speaker under the right conditions. But he's way behind McCain in knowledge and savvy.

[Platapus]

McCain has been a senator for 20 years, he actually knows how to do these things. He knows what he is talking about.

He may now what he is talking about, but looking at his history in both the house and the senate, McCain has had a most mediocre career.

In 26 years he has been in charge of only two committees. One a party committee on Indian Affairs and the other being the Commerce Committee.

In looking over his entire almost 30 years in the congress, he has not accomplished all that much for someone trying to rag Obama on lack of experience.

He may call himself a maverick, but I think the rest of the Senate just calls McCain that annoying guy in the back of the room that everyone tries to ignore.

[Sailor Steve]

No matter who wins...

WE LOSE!

[Platapus]

No matter who wins...

WE LOSE!

Shhhh

That is supposed to be a secret. We don't want the population to know that. :know:

[Jimbuna]

No matter who wins...

WE LOSE!

Shhhh

That is supposed to be a secret. We don't want the population to know that. :know:

You appear to be blighted by the same lack of choice we have in the UK :lol:

[geetrue]

Only the republicans can say, "We couldn't come up with anyone better"
to run against a black/saudi/kind of white guy with polictal savy and charisma. :yep:

[Platapus]

No matter who wins...

WE LOSE!

Shhhh

That is supposed to be a secret. We don't want the population to know that. :know:

You appear to be blighted by the same lack of choice we have in the UK :lol:

One of these days, at some time during my lifetime, I hope there will be an election where I will have a candidate that I WANT to be in office.

Far too often I am just voting against someone, or voting for the lessor of two douche-bags.

I just want a candidate that I can feel good about!! Is that too much to ask for???

Evidently in America it is. :cry:

[Jimbuna]

No matter who wins...

WE LOSE!

Shhhh

That is supposed to be a secret. We don't want the population to know that. :know:

You appear to be blighted by the same lack of choice we have in the UK :lol:

One of these days, at some time during my lifetime, I hope there will be an election where I will have a candidate that I WANT to be in office.

Far too often I am just voting against someone, or voting for the lessor of two douche-bags.

I just want a candidate that I can feel good about!! Is that too much to ask for???

Evidently in America it is. :cry:

Same in the UK (at present anyway) :yep:

[Platapus]

Sometimes it appears that the only types of people willing to run for office are exactly the types we don't want in office.

[JoeCorrado]

Sometimes it appears that the only types of people willing to run for office are exactly the types we don't want in office.

Thank God for Barrack Obama. A real change, change we can believe in. :up:

[Task Force]

Myself as of now im sick of the both of them, I am tierd of seeing there advertiseing/ Political Commercials on TV:dead:

[Sea Demon]

I counted a number of things Obama has reversed himself on since the primary season just a short time ago. From using power from nuclear plants, Iran issues, Iraq and the surge, military funding, and a couple of others. He doesn't seem to know where he stands on anything. And will say whatever sounds best to suit the audience it's presented to. In regards to being a CINC, McCain was correct when he said Obama doesn't know a strategy from a tactic. I thought that line summed up pretty well how Obama views our presence and direction in Iraq, our goals in Afghanistan, and what premature withdrawal will mean. Obama looked very lacking in tact, very inexperienced, and completely dishonest in his many reversals of view. McCain called him on it. Unfortunately for Obama, he doesn't seem to think his words are part of the public record.

[Task Force]

The main question I ask myself....

Will they ever do it, and are they just talking out there A**holes....:yep:

[Platapus]

I counted a number of things Obama has reversed himself on since the primary season just a short time ago. From using power from nuclear plants, Iran issues, Iraq and the surge, military funding, and a couple of others. He doesn't seem to know where he stands on anything.


What is more important for a President

1. Keeping one position regards of changing environments or information

2. Being willing to revise a position when the environment changes or there is new information?

Personally I want a President who is not afraid to change his/her position when situations change or there is new information.

[Hylander_1314]

But Joe Biden could use some tips in American History. Listening to the radio talkshows yesterday, and heard him saying something to the effect that FDR was president when the crash of 29 occurred, and that he made a television appearence / speech, to calm the country?

If FDR had been president during the crash of 29, I doubt he would have been elected to the presidency 4 times. And I think the openning speech by Adolf Hitler during the 1936 Olympics in Berlin was the first or one of the first "television" broadcasts, or use of that technology.

Thankfully Biden will be dealing with current affairs.:up:

As a note to those who are a little less enlightened on American history, it was the 31st president of the United States, Herbert Hoover of the Republican Party, who was president during the Great Depression. A loathsome politician indeed.

Wouldn't it be ironic if our current market crashed in October? It would be "Black Tuesday" all over again.

Have you got a video or news article with Biden saying that? I'd love to read more about it. Reminds me of how President Bush (the current Bush; not Old Man Bush) couldn't spell "Connecticut", the state he was born in:

http://www.hermanmulder.nl%20(weblog)www.equator-principles.com/layout1.php?event=873&topic=

Stealth Hunter, I heard it on KOA 630 AM Radio, during the Kaplas and Silverman Show. I think it was on wednesday's or thurdays show.

There was also a bit where it sounded like he was trying to blow off a young voter who was questioning him on some of his policies in Ohio, and to dodge it, he responded with a statement about a tornado in Missouri, or Kansas and the 10,000 people died there, and he had to go. Again same radio station and talkjocks.

[Sea Demon]

What is more important for a President

1. Keeping one position regards of changing environments or information

2. Being willing to revise a position when the environment changes or there is new information?

Personally I want a President who is not afraid to change his/her position when situations change or there is new information.
Yeah, except conditions haven't changed in any significant manner between his last days of primary season. Definitely not even slightly enough to warrant total and dramatic reversals of point of view to the extent he shows now and the audience he is on display in front of. I also like a President who can revise policy positions as well due to changing circumstances. But that is not what Obama is displaying here. And it's totally apparent to any observer with even the shortest of memories.

[AVGWarhawk]

My take without reading the others in this post:

McCain: Had the edge with the military and world affairs. But by only small margin. He is befuddled with the economy. He seemed a bit more confident then Obama. McCain still extrudes the old school Washington. My feelings here is we will never get over Old School Washington. To many old goats running the place. Others who are new fall in line.

Obama: Focused to much on Afganistan. There is more world trouble other than Afganistan. (McCain seems to realise this and has the slight edge of 26 years of experiencing it). Obama seemed to stumble and stutter on some questions, ie. Obama likes to stump and use what he thinks the crowd wants to hear. In other words, he is not questioned. He is free to speak what he likes. However, under direct questioning, he started to show his inexperience to me. I noticed this as well when FOX had an interview with Bill O'Reilly. He should have known O'Reilly would go for the juggular. Obama is just as befuddle with the economy. Last, Obama needs to stop saying, "I think". Everyone here thinks. We need a leader who "knows".


I call it a even toss up. Although this was to be McCains night on foriegn policy, much of it was the economy. Me thinks the VP debate and VP as a whole will determine this race to the White House. I'm looking forward to the the VP debate. I wonder how much of a bulldog with lipstick Palin will be?

[Sea Demon]

Stealth Hunter, I heard it on KOA 630 AM Radio, during the Kaplas and Silverman Show. I think it was on wednesday's or thurdays show.

There was also a bit where it sounded like he was trying to blow off a young voter who was questioning him on some of his policies in Ohio, and to dodge it, he responded with a statement about a tornado in Missouri, or Kansas and the 10,000 people died there, and he had to go. Again same radio station and talkjocks.
Don't forget that Obama believes there's more than 50 states in the Union. And they think Bush is an idiot.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKGpwi58

[Platapus]

Don't forget that Obama believes there's more than 50 states in the Union. And they think Bush is an idiot.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrsBKGpwi58

Ok what was the mistake he made? Was it the use of the word state or the number 57?

[Sea Demon]

Ok what was the mistake he made? Was it the use of the word state or the number 57?

Are you serious? :-?

[Platapus]

Ok what was the mistake he made? Was it the use of the word state or the number 57?

Are you serious? :-?


Sure show me how much smarter you are then Senator Obama?

Should be a simple question to answer right?

Why do you think he made the mistake of mentioning 57 states? What was he confusing things with?

[Task Force]

Ok what was the mistake he made? Was it the use of the word state or the number 57?

Are you serious? :-?


Sure show me how much smarter you are then Senator Obama?

Should be a simple question to answer right?

Why do you think he made the mistake of mentioning 57 states? What was he confusing things with?
His IQ tests.;)

[Sea Demon]

Sure show me how much smarter you are then Senator Obama?

Should be a simple question to answer right?

Why do you think he made the mistake of mentioning 57 states? What was he confusing things with?
I see you may be one of Obama's blinded voters. :D At any rate, I know how many states we have in the Union. I'm already one up on him. :rock:I even think Mr. Bush has that one covered.

And BTW, it's smarter "than" Obama.... not "then". ;) Just letting you know.

Why do you think he made the mistake of mentioning 57 states?

Please tell me why you think he made this "mistake"?

[Platapus]

Sure show me how much smarter you are then Senator Obama?

Should be a simple question to answer right?

Why do you think he made the mistake of mentioning 57 states? What was he confusing things with?
I see you may be one of Obama's blinded voters. :D At any rate, I know how many states we have in the Union. I'm already one up on him. :rock:I even think Mr. Bush has that one covered.

And BTW, it's smarter "than" Obama.... not "then". ;) Just letting you know.

Since Senator Obama was talking about the Primaries, did you know there are 57 primary elections/caucuses for the Democratic Party?

So Senator Obama made a simple mistake of using the word state when he should have said primaries. He meant to talk about the 57 primaries but mistakenly used the word states instead.

You do know what the 57 Democratic primaries are don't you? :know:

[SteamWake]

Ya know Im not saying there is really anything here but...

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/obamas-57-states-a-muslim-freudian-slip/

Yea I know its a nut job blog...

[Sea Demon]

Since Senator Obama was talking about the Primaries, did you know there are 57 primary elections/caucuses for the Democratic Party?

So Senator Obama made a simple mistake of using the word state when he should have said primaries. He meant to talk about the 57 primaries but mistakenly used the word states instead.

You do know what the 57 Democratic primaries are don't you? :know:

HAHAHA. Please spare me. So he doesn't know the difference between a state and a primary? That's his problem. I'm not so sure I buy your explanation to his confusion here.

[Platapus]

well the point I was trying to make was that it was a simple mistake, not indicative of any lack of knowledge.

[Sea Demon]

Ya know Im not saying there is really anything here but...

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/obamas-57-states-a-muslim-freudian-slip/

Yea I know its a nut job blog...

The way Obama used it in the sentence makes me think he really is confused about how many states we actually have versus what he thinks about primaries. You don't visit primaries. You visit states, counties, and voting districts, but not primaries.

[AVGWarhawk]

Sure show me how much smarter you are then Senator Obama?

Should be a simple question to answer right?

Why do you think he made the mistake of mentioning 57 states? What was he confusing things with?
I see you may be one of Obama's blinded voters. :D At any rate, I know how many states we have in the Union. I'm already one up on him. :rock:I even think Mr. Bush has that one covered.

And BTW, it's smarter "than" Obama.... not "then". ;) Just letting you know.

Since Senator Obama was talking about the Primaries, did you know there are 57 primary elections/caucuses for the Democratic Party?

So Senator Obama made a simple mistake of using the word state when he should have said primaries. He meant to talk about the 57 primaries but mistakenly used the word states instead.

You do know what the 57 Democratic primaries are don't you? :know:

I know Obama made a another statement on the biased ABC news during an interview by stating people question his Islamic faith... and only to be helped by the interviewer in quickly saying Christian faith. It is seriously bad when the media helped groom this man. Maybe it is the 57 states of Islam? Maybe the media and everyone has gone nuts. I betting on the media and everyone going nuts :doh: Whatever the case...we be screwed. :dead: Bail out anyone?

[Sailor Steve]

Sometimes it appears that the only types of people willing to run for office are exactly the types we don't want in office.

Thank God for Barrack Obama. A real change, change we can believe in. :up:
So, instead of discussing the debate with everybody else, you choose to post a campaign ad.

Please explain the "change we can believe in". Ethnicity aside, he looks like more of the same to me.

[Zachstar]

Remember George Bush lost the first two debates with Senator Kerry four years ago and then took an agressive, get in your face, stance for the third debate, winning the debate and then winning the election by over 3,000,000 votes the largest winning percentage in American election history. :yep:

McCain's voice cracked a couple of times, but I think he did well to keep pounding on the subject that Obama is not ready to take the helm of a country this big.

Obama will become a better senator after this election so he can have a better chance in 2012 with at least four more years of experience he should do much better (not just in the polls, but in the actual race), but so will Mrs Clinton all the while saying, "Obama should've chose me for a running mate"

Um what?

Bush was ahead going into the debates, Was ahead coming out of them, and was ahead on election day.

Nuff said..

[Zachstar]

People seem to be seeing what thay want to see.

Those that favored Obama before the debate think he won the debate, or at least held his own in a debate where the topic favored McCain.

Those that favored McCain before the debate feel he won the debate, often putting Obama on the defensive.

It is about the undecided voter and in most polls they went towards Obama.

Also if there was a blowout, Even dems would be admitting he blew it. McCain BADLY needed a blowout to gain steam now he faces debates that Obama has an advantage.

A tie is a loss for the one behind.. Period

[Zachstar]

I support McCain, so I am biased. From what I saw of the debate, Obama strikes me as out of his element. He repeats generic talking points that basically mean "We have to fix everything". McCain has been a senator for 20 years, he actually knows how to do these things. He knows what he is talking about. Obama is one of the most inexperienced, junior senators, a scant 2 years of experience. He is a good speaker under the right conditions. But he's way behind McCain in knowledge and savvy.

I agree that he was not the best he could have been yesterday.

He missed 5 chances (That I can count) to totally strike back at McCain's points. 2 of them being Obvious!

Both basically gave their stump speeches with a bit of idiocy between the speeches. This is not what McCain needed.

As for the "Obama Inexperienced! RUN!!!!111!" stuff.. Well that has nothing to do with debate performance in my view.

[Zachstar]

Sure show me how much smarter you are then Senator Obama?

Should be a simple question to answer right?

Why do you think he made the mistake of mentioning 57 states? What was he confusing things with?
I see you may be one of Obama's blinded voters. ......


It's comments like these that will help insure that the majority of young voters never go Republican again.

Thanks! :up:

[Sea Demon]

It's comments like these that will help insure that the majority of young voters never go Republican again.

Thanks! :up:

You're dreaming. :yep:

[Sea Demon]

It's comments like these that will help insure that the majority of young voters never go Republican again.

Thanks! :up:
You're dreaming. :yep:

In addition, I'm sure hacking a candidates personal e-mails goes over well for Democrats in wooing new voters. Not!!

[Zachstar]

It's comments like these that will help insure that the majority of young voters never go Republican again.

Thanks! :up:
You're dreaming. :yep:
In addition, I'm sure hacking a candidates personal e-mails goes over well for Democrats in wooing new voters. Not!!

I ain't about me is it? Am I that famous?

In addition. You could have hit the edit feature. Works wonders for BTW points.

As for the hacking. The person who did it will face justice in a court of law. Nuff said.

[Onkel Neal]

Sometimes it appears that the only types of people willing to run for office are exactly the types we don't want in office.

Thank God for Barrack Obama. A real change, change we can believe in. :up:

Hahahaaa.... wait, are you serious?


.

[Task Force]

I just want it to be all over so I know whether to dig up my back garden and build a bomb shelter....

Anychance you might have any left over materials...:rotfl:

I built my bomb shelter, I was supprised at the price too.
http://product-image.tradeindia.com/00179383/b/Corrugated-Paper-Box.jpg
Im safe from nuclear warfare, But not form termites.:lol: It has a easy intrence hatch on top, and the best part is that it looks great in ally ways, and no one will ever know.

[Zachstar]

Sometimes it appears that the only types of people willing to run for office are exactly the types we don't want in office.
Thank God for Barrack Obama. A real change, change we can believe in. :up:
Hahahaaa.... wait, are you serious?


.

I think it was a joke. Tho hard to get if you aren't a political person.

[Sea Demon]

I ain't about me is it? Am I that famous?

As for the hacking. The person who did it will face justice in a court of law. Nuff said.
I never said you did it personally. But how will it win new "young" voters for Democrats??? Young voters looking for tolerance, "fairness", and compassion might be a little disappointed if they look at the Democrat Party and their uses of sewer tactics like these.

[Stealth Hunter]

I just want it to be all over so I know whether to dig up my back garden and build a bomb shelter....

Anychance you might have any left over materials...:rotfl:

I built my bomb shelter, I was supprised at the price too.
http://product-image.tradeindia.com/00179383/b/Corrugated-Paper-Box.jpg
Im safe from nuclear warfare, But not form termites.:lol: It has a easy intrence hatch on top, and the best part is that it looks great in ally ways, and no one will ever know.

Hope it doesn't rain for your sake.:up:

Consult your local homeless man on how to make the most out of your cardboard box home and how to waterproof it.

[Task Force]

I just want it to be all over so I know whether to dig up my back garden and build a bomb shelter....

Anychance you might have any left over materials...:rotfl:

I built my bomb shelter, I was supprised at the price too.
http://product-image.tradeindia.com/00179383/b/Corrugated-Paper-Box.jpg
Im safe from nuclear warfare, But not form termites.:lol: It has a easy intrence hatch on top, and the best part is that it looks great in ally ways, and no one will ever know.

Hope it doesn't rain for your sake.:up:

Consult your local homeless man on how to make the most out of your cardboard box home and how to waterproof it.

I did, he said something about a bottle of booze and a good night sleep, anouther guy surgested old sod, and the last guy said to steal some tar and paint it on with my hand.:huh: (sounds painful)

[Zachstar]

I ain't about me is it? Am I that famous?

As for the hacking. The person who did it will face justice in a court of law. Nuff said.
But how will it win new "young" voters for Democrats??? Young voters looking for tolerance, "fairness", and compassion might be a little disappointed if they look at the Democrat Party and their uses of sewer tactics like these.
It does not help your position to use conspiricy theory. If a political party did it.. Why? There is no game changing stuff from what I hear in the news.

And if it was a political party don't you think they would be a wee bit more say... Stealthy?

As for the young voters. The only reaction to this is A) The kid that did it is an idiot and B) Sarah is an idiot for having such a dumbass protection scheme when she is a public figure. And a leader of a state.

The efforts to paint this to democrats only work on those deeply strong to McCain already.

There is no democratic conspiricy. And BTW 9/11 was NOT an inside job. And there is no damn batboy!


Edit to your edit: When I said "I ain't about me is it? Am I that famous?" I meant that as a person posting on a forum I am nothing compared to the many young voters seeing how the usual crap is only killing their futures and the tone towards any who "Dare" change only solidifies their continued move towards the dems.

[Sea Demon]

It does not help your position to use conspiricy theory. If a political party did it.. Why? There is no game changing stuff from what I hear in the news.

And if it was a political party don't you think they would be a wee bit more say... Stealthy?

As for the young voters. The only reaction to this is A) The kid that did it is an idiot and B) Sarah is an idiot for having such a dumbass protection scheme when she is a public figure. And a leader of a state.

The efforts to paint this to democrats only work on those deeply strong to McCain already.

There is no democratic conspiricy. And BTW 9/11 was NOT an inside job. And there is no damn batboy!
Oh no, my friend. It's no conspiracy. I think we know exactly who the people who did this are and what their motivations are. And I think we know exactly where their votes will go. New "young" voters will figure it out as well. But if you're looking for sewer tactics directly from the DNC, how about the Dems sending up the high paid lawyers to Alaska to do nothing but try and dig up any dirt they can about Palin? Even though it doesn't look like they're having much success, it doesn't look very nice to anybody looking for a compassionate and tolerant party. I'm assuming new "young" voters may not like that. ;)

[Task Force]

I just want it to be all over so I know whether to dig up my back garden and build a bomb shelter....

Anychance you might have any left over materials...:rotfl:

I built my bomb shelter, I was supprised at the price too.
http://product-image.tradeindia.com/00179383/b/Corrugated-Paper-Box.jpg
Im safe from nuclear warfare, But not form termites.:lol: It has a easy intrence hatch on top, and the best part is that it looks great in ally ways, and no one will ever know.

Hope it doesn't rain for your sake.:up:

Consult your local homeless man on how to make the most out of your cardboard box home and how to waterproof it.

I did, he said something about a bottle of booze and a good night sleep, anouther guy surgested old sod, and the last guy said to steal some tar and paint it on with my hand.:huh: (sounds painful)
Dont forget your Duck and Cover drills. STATIONS!!!:o

[Sea Demon]

I meant that as a person posting on a forum I am nothing compared to the many young voters seeing how the usual crap is only killing their futures and the tone towards any who "Dare" change only solidifies their continued move towards the dems.

Oh yes. The infamous "continued move towards the Democrats". :roll: Do you really believe some of the hogwash you post? No, I think some of the smarter of the younger generation will realize that putting their lot in with an ever expanding government is the biggest impediment to realizing their dreams and securing their futures. That won't exactly be a positive for the Democrats. They may represent change...but it's not good at all.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntEE9Zy-qQQ

Ignore the title. Just watch the video and listen to Palin's segments.

Good god...:nope:

[Sea Demon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntEE9Zy-qQQ

Ignore the title. Just watch the video and listen to Palin's segments.

Good god...:nope:

I watched this thing through once, then cherry picked a few other segments the next run. It's nothing but a worthless smear video. When will you guys learn stuff like this nonsense will not turn voters over to Obama? Got anything substantive other than she is a woman of faith? Here's a clue for you. Most of the USA is around people of faith. Mostly of Christian denominations. Seriously Stealth Hunter, for the amount of smearing you do of people of Christian faith, you've moved to the wrong country. I invite you to pack up and leave if Christians offend you to the degree they apparently do. Palin and her devotion to her faith are no different from most Presidents of the USA going all the way back to the founding of the country regarding faith. You're delusional and grossly misinformed if you believe faith disqualifies you from the Executive branch. If you want to know what's scary, take a look at the place you came from. You may want to check some of the religiously, Islamic based nutty comments made by the Iranian President and the Islamic Supreme Leader. You ain't foolin' anybody.

[Sea Demon]

It really strikes me when people say "McCain has more foreign policy experience than Obama". Excuse me, isn't he the guy who talked about al qaeda training camp in Iran and so forth ? On the other side we have Biden mister "let's split Iraq in 3 countries, kurds, sunnis & shias", yeah way to go. They're both clueless, being a state senator for X years doesn't grant anyone foreign policy experience/understanding automagically.

It's been pretty well reasoned that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. And there is some talk that some Al Qaeda members have been given refuge there. But yeah, McCain got it wrong if he said there were actual camps there. I'd still trust McCain more than the other side for many various reasons. And if we're talking overall experience, Obama doesn't have anywhere near McCain. But to Obama's credit, he did pick a #2 on the ticket with quite a bit of experience in foreign policy affairs. Although I don't agree with his approach at all.

[Sea Demon]

And there is some talk that some Al Qaeda members have been given refuge there.

Ah, that was the kind of strong evidence I was looking for ! :D

Right. That's why I didn't claim it was a guarantee.

But there are many of these types of reports all over the place:

http://www.eursoc.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/1827/Iran's_Al-Qaeda_Links.html

And we do have Iranian leadership openly supporting Hezbollah and Hamas terror organizations. So I think that a link between AQ and Iran could be a possibility. This particular report also says Iran may fear AQ as well, so who knows?

[Sea Demon]

Well Iran supporting Hezbollah goes without saying, but that doesn't really support ties between Iran and AQ. Hezbollah struggles against rising AQ-like groups in Lebanon, groups which are allegedly funded by the pro US sunnis of the former majority party which are themselves funded by Saudi Arabia. And you wouldn't call Saudi Arabia and Iran friends now would you ?

Right. I believe I've already conceded this point to you. You are correct. Like I said, while it's known Iran supports terror organizations, the direct link with AQ is just conjecture and extrapolations. I'm not arguing against what you're saying about it. I believe Mr. McCain may have just been referencing that. That's all.

[Tchocky]

Last, Obama needs to stop saying, "I think". Everyone here thinks. We need a leader who "knows".
Ah yes, knowing in one's gut.

You've got one of those Presidents. Right now. He knows what is and isn't true, and he's not going to let anyone tell him otherwise. Because he knows. He doesn't need to think. And hasn't it been swell?

Thinking is active, "knowing" is sedentary.

Give me a thinker any day.

EDIT - The main comment on this debate, before the financial crisis reared it's head, was that it was on McCain turf, national security. He didn't prove that. It seems that in order to be described as having serious national security credentials, one only needs to be in favour of starting lots of wars.

[Zachstar]

I meant that as a person posting on a forum I am nothing compared to the many young voters seeing how the usual crap is only killing their futures and the tone towards any who "Dare" change only solidifies their continued move towards the dems.
Oh yes. The infamous "continued move towards the Democrats". :roll: Do you really believe some of the hogwash you post? No, I think some of the smarter of the younger generation will realize that putting their lot in with an ever expanding government is the biggest impediment to realizing their dreams and securing their futures. That won't exactly be a positive for the Democrats. They may represent change...but it's not good at all.

Yes the past 8 years have been GREAT towards their futures. :rotfl:

We shall see this November. I will bookmark this to reply to on November 5th

[August]

You've got one of those Presidents. Right now. He knows what is and isn't true, and he's not going to let anyone tell him otherwise. Because he knows. He doesn't need to think. And hasn't it been swell?

That's not true Tchocky and you know it, so stop spreading lies. The President listens to his advisers as much as any other president has in the past.

[Stealth Hunter]

It really strikes me when people say "McCain has more foreign policy experience than Obama". Excuse me, isn't he the guy who talked about al qaeda training camp in Iran and so forth ? On the other side we have Biden mister "let's split Iraq in 3 countries, kurds, sunnis & shias", yeah way to go. They're both clueless, being a state senator for X years doesn't grant anyone foreign policy experience/understanding automagically.

It's been pretty well reasoned that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. And there is some talk that some Al Qaeda members have been given refuge there. But yeah, McCain got it wrong if he said there were actual camps there. I'd still trust McCain more than the other side for many various reasons. And if we're talking overall experience, Obama doesn't have anywhere near McCain. But to Obama's credit, he did pick a #2 on the ticket with quite a bit of experience in foreign policy affairs. Although I don't agree with his approach at all.

You are aware that the United States sponsored terrorist groups in the Middle-East when the Russians invaded Afgahnistan in the 1970s and '80s, aren't you? I mean, they were acknowledged as "rebel groups", but they were basically terrorist groups. The government gave them weapons, and they let them loose.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Sea Demon]

You are aware that the United States sponsored terrorist groups in the Middle-East when the Russians invaded Afgahnistan in the 1970s and '80s, aren't you? I mean, they were acknowledged as "rebel groups", but they were basically terrorist groups. The government gave them weapons, and they let them loose.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.
You're incredibly full of it Stealth Hunter. The United States used the Mujahadeen as a tool in Afghanistan as a means to ward off an even greater threat of the time...aggressive Soviet military movements in Central Asia. At the time, the Mujahadeen were little to no threat to us and grew into an international terrorist organization only after the Cold War ceased.

Iran on the other hand proudly supports terror organizations that directly target civilian populations with the explicit goals of killing as many civilians they they can to force their political will. What you don't seem to understand is that Iran is a terrorist nation. The USA is not. And you are a confused soul. Not much anybody can do for a poisoned mind such as yours.

[Sea Demon]

Every country not favorable to US influence is either communist or terrorist :roll:

Yep. Those are two things we ardently oppose. :D

[CCIP]

You're incredibly full of it Stealth Hunter. The United States used the Mujahadeen as a tool in Afghanistan as a means to ward off an even greater threat of the time...aggressive Soviet military movements in Central Asia. At the time, the Mujahadeen were little to no threat to us and grew into an international terrorist organization only after the Cold War ceased.


So how does that not make it supporting a terrorist group?

Oh I get it. They're only terrorist when they start attacking YOU. Let's ignore what they perpetrated on their own population and groups within their country, the culture, the monuments they destroyed... :roll:

I think you've yourself admitted a fairly clear causality relationship here. Obviously a wise politician should have thought a few years ahead when committing to support that or other group, or they should be considered criminally irresponsible. Which in my view they are.

[Sea Demon]

So how does that not make it supporting a terrorist group?

Oh I get it. They're only terrorist when they start attacking YOU. Let's ignore what they perpetrated on their own population and groups within their country, the culture, the monuments they destroyed... :roll:

I think you've yourself admitted a fairly clear causality relationship here. Obviously a wise politician should have thought a few years ahead when committing to support that or other group, or they should be considered criminally irresponsible. Which in my view they are.
It was a very good means for heading off a much greater threat at the time. They were simply used as tools to destroy Soviet military movements in Central Asia that had severe military and geostrategic implications. We had to intervene, and did so. Perhaps more foresight would have been helpful in cleaning up the mess after they were not "useful" any longer. I know that you Euro's/Canucks and such are so desperate to equivocate. Yet we know there are geostrategic principles here that are greater than the first dimension of your charges. It's not supporting or sponsoring terrorist groups as an issue. Get your head out CCIP. This is where your argument falls flat. The Mujahadeen were a way to counter Soviet aggression without direct confrontation on a superpower level. It's not clean, but it is not equivalent to terrorist support. Iran on the other hand is a terrorist nation that directly sponsors international terror organizations. Organizations that directly target civilians as a means to force political will. That's pretty clear.

[Sea Demon]

Yeah and Iran supporting Hezbollah is a way to counter the US backed Israeli aggression without direct confrontation. That's pretty clear :D

HAHAHA. Mikhayl you're so lost it's laughable. US backed Israeli aggression? :lol: What tripe are they teaching you guys over there? Did they get your school lesson plans from an Iranian Islamic scholar? Sounds like it to me. You sound exactly like one. And no, the way Iran's going...they will get direct confrontation with us. And it won't be pretty for them.

[Sea Demon]

Yeah and Iran supporting Hezbollah is a way to counter the US backed Israeli aggression without direct confrontation. That's pretty clear :D
HAHAHA. Mikhayl you're so lost it's laughable. US backed Israeli aggression? :lol: What tripe are they teaching you guys over there? Did they get your school lesson plans from an Iranian Islamic scholar? Sounds like it to me. You sound exactly like one. And no, the way Iran's going...they will get direct confrontation with us. And it won't be pretty for them. :up:

So I can infer from your thumbs up that you're a terrorist sympathizer? OK. :shifty:

[Tchocky]

The Mujahadeen were a way to counter Soviet aggression without direct confrontation on a superpower level. It's not clean, but it is not equivalent to terrorist support.
Would you mind explaining this a little further?

[Sea Demon]

The Mujahadeen were a way to counter Soviet aggression without direct confrontation on a superpower level. It's not clean, but it is not equivalent to terrorist support.
Would you mind explaining this a little further?
I think it's pretty self explanatory. Put both sentences together and re-read. It's actually quite a simple concept to understand. But I will expound a little. We used resources on the ground to confront a much larger threat in the region, that went against the security of US and allied forces in the Indian Ocean and region as a whole. All without getting into a confrontation that could have been larger and more dangerous. I'm glad we did it, but like I said, we should have worked the end game better.

[Tchocky]

I think it's pretty self explanatory. Put both sentences together and re-read. It's actually quite a simple concept to understand. But I will expound a little. We used resources on the ground to confront a much larger threat in the region, that went against the security of US and allied forces in the Indian Ocean and region as a whole. All without getting into a confrontation that could have been larger and more dangerous. I'm glad we did it, but like I said, we should have worked the end game better.

You can phrase the situation differently, and state the end goal, but that doesn't tell me how it is not supporting terror. How is providing material support to a terrorist organisation not supporting terror? Your post above doesn't explain anything except what the goal was.

I understand that the end goal was not the support of the mujahideen. Do you think Iran's support of Hezbollah is it's own end goal?

An ulterior motive doesn't remove it from the support of terror category.

The point I'm making is similiar to Mikhayl's.

[Sea Demon]

You can phrase the situation differently, and state the end goal, but that doesn't tell me how it is not supporting terror. How is providing material support to a terrorist organisation not supporting terror? Your post above doesn't explain anything except what the goal was.

It's seems particularly elementary to me. Plus the mujahadeen weren't much of a terrorist conglomerate until after the Cold War ended. I guess you guys up North there truly don't understand geostrategy. Nor can you extrapolate the difference between resource usage and actual terrorist support in the context of global strategy.

I understand that the end goal was not the support of the mujahideen. Do you think Iran's support of Hezbollah is it's own end goal?

An ulterior motive doesn't remove it from the support of terror category.


I'm glad you can see that. But Iran and Hezbollah have similar regional (and global) goals for that matter. So yes, Iran directly supports and acts on this stuff directly as a terrorist nation. And the methods are to directly and purposely target civilian populations to force their political will. I don't think the Iranian Supreme leadership really works that hard to hide what goals they are pursuing and to what ends. Nor do the methods or motivations seem very well hidden. Your equivocation is indeed not very well thought out.

[Sea Demon]

perpetrated by salafi groups allegedly funded by the Saudi to counter hezbollah,
That's the kind of sure footed accuracy and proof we were all hoping for. :roll:

Saudi Arabia is also a terrorist nation, right?
Desperation suits you.

[Sea Demon]

Proof ? It's not like I'm accusing anyone, merely citing facts. If you never heard of nahr al bared, fatah al islam and rafic hariri I'm sure google will help you. So what's with "desperation", if any nation funds terrorists, then it's a terrorist nation, or does it only apply to Iran ?

Yeah, there are bad elements in Saudi Arabia. There are many groups and factions of Islamic terrorism in many countries. But you're so called "facts" aren't all that accurate. Saudi Arabia is a quite complex country. While they promote Wahhabism, they have also helped us in efforts to crack down on certain radical elements within their own midst. The Saudi government and royal family are actually worried about radical elements overthrowing their setup. Calling them a terrorist nation.....like the Iran model...is a very innacurate assessment.

And your desperation is in your futile efforts to equivocate the USA to terrorist nations such as Iran. Your attempts to do so at all costs merely wastes your time and makes you seem lacking in ability to reason.

[Stealth Hunter]

You are aware that the United States sponsored terrorist groups in the Middle-East when the Russians invaded Afgahnistan in the 1970s and '80s, aren't you? I mean, they were acknowledged as "rebel groups", but they were basically terrorist groups. The government gave them weapons, and they let them loose.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.
You're incredibly full of it Stealth Hunter. The United States used the Mujahadeen as a tool in Afghanistan as a means to ward off an even greater threat of the time...aggressive Soviet military movements in Central Asia. At the time, the Mujahadeen were little to no threat to us and grew into an international terrorist organization only after the Cold War ceased.

Iran on the other hand proudly supports terror organizations that directly target civilian populations with the explicit goals of killing as many civilians they they can to force their political will. What you don't seem to understand is that Iran is a terrorist nation. The USA is not. And you are a confused soul. Not much anybody can do for a poisoned mind such as yours.

:roll:

Read a little more about the beginnings of the Taliban and look into the Iran-Contra Scandal. I recommend "War is Peace" by Arundhati Roy. They were originally rebels who were given weapons by the United States to fight and harass the invading Russian troops in Afghanistan. They were also given funds by the United States government...

Nobody is supplying them with weapons or ammo. They're using the same s*** they got nearly 30 years ago.

[Sea Demon]

:roll:

Read a little more about the beginnings of the Taliban and look into the Iran-Contra Scandal. I recommend "War is Peace" by Arundhati Roy. They were originally rebels who were given weapons by the United States to fight and harass the invading Russian troops in Afghanistan. They were also given funds by the United States government...

Nobody is supplying them with weapons or ammo. They're using the same weapons they got nearly 30 years ago.
You're incredibly naive to believe that. That's definitely not what our soldiers are saying. Anyway, all of your first paragraph here was sufficiently addressed above. We know about the US support for the mujahadeen against a hostile Soviet military expanding south. It was the right thing to do. We used them like a tool against the Soviets. Too bad you don't understand geostrategy in this context as well. Your nation (Iran) is a terrorist nation who supports the targeting of civilians to push a backwards political will. My country (USA) is not.

Thanks.

[Sea Demon]

The fact is that Iran and Saudi Arabia are two wannabee head of the region and they both use the same weapons to achive that, the only difference between the two is that Saudi Arabia bows to the US will and Iran does not, so one is a "complex country" and the other is a "terrorist nation".

Nope, they are indeed very different and should be approached differently. Indeed both view terrorism from very different perspective. Your lack of knowledge of both countries is your own lack of insight. You simply look at these two countries and equivocate because you are searching for anything. But you will be unable to prove Iran and Saudi Arabia are one and the same. Facts are, they're not.

[Stealth Hunter]

You're incredibly naive to believe that.

How the hell is it naive? It's no secret. The United States supplied Afghan rebels during the war with weapons to fight the Russians. Read a book on the matter sometime.:nope:

Now I know you believe Iran is supplying the terrorists with weapons, but since the American invasion of Iraq, not ONE bit of evidence has EVER been produced to confirm this. Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM-3pyeG6UI

Watch the last segment of it.

Anyway, all of your first paragraph here was sufficiently addressed above. We know about the US support for the mujahadeen against a hostile Soviet military expanding south. It was the right thing to do. We used them like a tool against the Soviets. Too bad you don't understand geostrategy in this context as well. Your nation is a terrorist nation who supports the targeting of civilians to push a backwards political will. My country is not.

Too bad you don't understand all the **** that went on after the war. The people that got the weapons from the United States were Islamic fundies, but that wasn't what mattered according to the military. No, so long as the Russians were their enemies and they were willing to fight and die against them, they'd back them. And once that was done, they (the Muslims) started to fight with one another. The sect that called themselves the "Taliban" came out with the most power and support.

I LIVED in Iran when this was going on. Don't lecture me on what happened. I WAS ****ING THERE, YOU THICK-HEADED PATRIOT.

[Sea Demon]

How the hell is it naive? It's no secret. The United States supplied Afghan rebels during the war with weapons to fight the Russians. Read a book on the matter sometime.:nope:

Now I know you believe Iran is supplying the terrorists with weapons, but since the American invasion of Iraq, not ONE bit of evidence has EVER been produced to confirm this. Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM-3pyeG6UI

Watch the last segment of it.
Olbermann? :lol: You've got to be kidding me. All the above has been addressed. I know what happened there. We all do. But generally speaking, I'm glad we used the mujahadeen as a resource on the ground to ward off Soviet aggression. It actually worked well for us.

On the other hand.......

Too bad you don't understand all the **** that went on after the war. The people that got the weapons from the United States were Islamic fundies, but that wasn't what mattered according to the military. No, so long as the Russians were their enemies and they were willing to fight and die against them, they'd back them. And once that was done, they (the Muslims) started to fight with one another. The sect that called themselves the "Taliban" came out with the most power and support.

I LIVED in Iran when this was going on. Don't lecture me on what happened. I WAS ****ING THERE, YOU THICK-HEADED PATRIOT.
You're not saying anything different than I was on this single point. I know we messed up by not being more proactive in the region after our goals were met. Lesson learned. But no, we are not state sponsors of terrorists like Iran. We simply used these nuts against the Soviets. Big difference. Iran is a terrorist nation by goal and deed. They actively work with groups that directly and viciously target/kill civilians. Trying to equivocate here rings hollow.

[JHuschke]

A black man who's racist, threw his mother under the bus so he could get presidency and his mother is white..and yet white people vote for him. How stupid can people be?

[CCIP]

We simply used these nuts against the Soviets. Big difference. Iran is a terrorist nation by goal and deed. They actively work with groups that directly and viciously target/kill civilians. Trying to equivocate here rings hollow.
Did the Mujahedeen sign a contract and have US observers monitor their activities? Hmmmmm?

So let me break this down: you're using a lot of words, but what you're saying is that the US supported terrorists before they were terrorists. Kind of like the US supported Saddam Hussein before he was Saddam Hussein? Of course! It's not an "our sonofabitch" approach - this is a "before he was a sonofabitch" approach. See, just like Hitler, all the bad guys in the world were artists before they became bad guys. Ingenious!

Ah, always being right in a world full of grey areas is a tough job, but someone has to do it. Just can't be any other way. Thanks America! :up:

[August]

Calling all the Mujaheddin "terrorists" is an incredibly racist thing to say. At least some of them were just simple people fighting to rid their country of a brutal invader.

[Sailor Steve]

Funny, and possibly irrelevant, but I came home in 1970 feeling exactly that way about the Vietnamese.

[Konovalov]

Calling all the Mujaheddin "terrorists" is an incredibly racist thing to say. At least some of them were just simple people fighting to rid their country of a brutal invader.
True. In fact the majority of the Mujahideen were local Afghan insurgents fighting to remove an invader (Soviets) from their lands. The terrorists tended to be some of those from the "Arab" mujahideen who didn't return to their countries of origin once the war against the Soviets had ended.

Not sure what any of this discussion has to do with the debate. :-?

[CCIP]

Calling all the Mujaheddin "terrorists" is an incredibly racist thing to say. At least some of them were just simple people fighting to rid their country of a brutal invader.

I'm being a bit snarky there of course; that's not even my main point. My main point lies more in the black-and-white interpretation of this whole thing. Are you sure that "at least some of them" is justification enough? Particularly in light of the consequences we've seen - surely the fact that there's at least a somewhat direct connection between members of these groups and 9/11 should be of some concern. Perhaps what should be read into my comments: it may have seemed a shrewd and pragmatic decision to support those groups in that time and place, but that doesn't make it good or even right in retrospect. I for one am not sure if it really did any good, considering what happened to Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal - perhaps in part because the US lost all interest in being involved in Afghanistan once the Soviets were out. But it's not like the weapons which the US provided to some of these groups suddenly evaporated or were magnetically attracted to the retreating Soviets. If they made the war against the Soviets easier for the Afghans, they made the situation after the war much worse, something which I see at least a couple of people in this thread thoroughly denying. My point is not at all about mujahedeen being terrorist or not terrorist. My point is that this is not a black-and-white situation and the causality relationships between the support to Afghan groups and later events of terrorism show that it wasn't all just nice national pride and repelling of evil invaders. And had the US really any interest in Afghan stability and peace at the time, there would have been greater accountability and commitment than merely handing over weapons on the basis of whether the binary value for "communist" was 0 or 1 in what should be a very long string describing a particular group's position. It's that sort of thinking which bothers me in the case.

Steve also has a very good point there.