Debate

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2770578
I'm gonna have to agree with reefraff on this one, its our future we are talking about. Now I disagree with reef on which one it should be, but it's in everyones interest to care. Not trying to flame you or anything, I was in the same situation once....and I voted for Bush the first time

Thats OK, I voted for Perot in 92

 

[reefraff]

The BSNBC crowd, Andrea Mitchell, CHris Mathews Pat Buchanan and David Gregory were all talking about how Obama was going with I agree with John and McCain kept talking about Senator Obama doesn't understand. I only stayed on for about 5 minutes but they all seemed to agree that McCain had come out ahead.
I watched the rerun on CNN with the lines and one thing I noticed during the economic portion was McCain was getting a lot of time with the independents above the Republicans. They definitely had at least negative initial reactions to the attacks from either side but that is a pretty consistent pattern with independents. I wonder how accurate those focus groups really are thought. I watched one on FOX and they asked a couple people what they though and two of them said they thought McCain was stuttering and bumbling too much. Now that's just weird because I thought McCain did really well as far as speaking well and it was Obama at just a couple points kinda got a bit flustered. Gotta wonder if the campaigns aren't infiltrating those focus groups.
I think McCain will end up with a little advantage based on all the I agree with Johns coming from Obama but other than that there was nothing there to swing people one way or another.

 

[rebelprettyboy]

Well I watched the debate snce my gma recoreded it. And been watching CNN for a few hours now. And Id have to say after watching that and listening to the ppl on CNN. Id honsetly still have to vote Obama.
But ill start watching this stuff more. But gotta watch tha hottie Palin Thursday on the VP debate!

 

[1knight164]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2770576
(Sorry I don't know a nickname for CNN)
We use to call it "Communist News Network" but I like "Clinton News Network" that stdreb suggested.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by 1knight164
http:///forum/post/2770847
We use to call it "Communist News Network" but I like "Clinton News Network" that stdreb suggested.
When loony Dobbs is talking economics I call it the communist news network.
I don't know how it played overall, but I wasn't a big fan of the "what Obama doesn't understand" clearly he doesn't but I got a little annoyed by it.
However, between the two, i did like how mccain would talk cool calm and collected, while obama was trying to raise his voice a little to get a word in edgewise, and McCain never stopped, and obama would just shut up. I perceived that as a weakness on obama's part.
On a poly sci note, I do find it ironic, that they continue running against bush. This whole McBush think. They don't go after mccain for being mccain, they go after him for being bush. And this is a centerpoint argument of the obama campaign. It is just a very weak argument.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2770863
On a poly sci note, I do find it ironic, that they continue running against bush. This whole McBush think. They don't go after mccain for being mccain, they go after him for being bush. And this is a centerpoint argument of the obama campaign. It is just a very weak argument.
Actually I think that the argument is becoming more and more appropriate. Since the bail out crisis, McCain now seems to be touting this platform of "The government needs total reform and has gotten way out of hand." How many times did we hear him say that "I didn't win Miss Congeniality in the Senate." He's now attempting to argue that he should be elected because because he's the guy to reform the mistakes of the past eight (8) years. His credibility clearly comes into question because his record of Bush support is clear.
I also thought that Obama did well in responding to McCain's "half-true" allegations. For instance, when McCain mentioned that Obama voted against funds for the soldiers... but he neglected to mention that the bill had no time-line and that McCain himself voted against funds for the soldiers where there was a timeline.
I thought Obama wanted to discuss the issues directly with McCain and that's why he often looked at him and posed direct questions to him. McCain wanted no part of any direct debate with Obama, wouldn't look at him nor direct any responses to him. McCain also didn't give answers to most of the questions asked. He would be asked about his policy on Afghanistan and he'd tell in irrelevant anticdote about wearing a dead soldier's bracelet.
I don't agree with everything Obama said, though. My thoughts on health care tend to me more in line with McCain. But I think that Obama comes across much more honest and intelligent than McCain. I think McCain is a man of very low moral character and his fake gestures and half-hearted smile are unconvincing. I think Obama did very well in the debate, but I'd expect him to with his background (editor of the Harvard Law Review and Constitutional Law Professor for 12 years). JMO

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2770656
there was nothing there to swing people one way or another.
yeah, I agree with this. Those who like McCain still like McCain, those who like Obama still like Obama. I don't think there was a defining point that swung votes for anybody.
Couple observations:
-did you notice how McCain wouldn't look at Obama?
-did you notice how Obama was calling McCain by his first name? (when he could get it right, Jim, Tom, John, whats the difference?

)
-did you notice who was and wasn't wearing a lapel pin?

 

[sickboy]

I would have to agree with crimzy on the "I didn't win Miss Congeniality in the Senate" comment. Its getting as old as the "I was a POW and thats why I should be president" argument.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2770978
-did you notice how Obama was calling McCain by his first name? (when he could get it right, Jim, Tom, John, whats the difference?

)
I think that Obama wanted to entice McCain to get into a direct discussion with him. This was, IMO, pretty good strategy because Obama is a much better speaker than McCain and also because McCain's words are generally only half true (if that much). McCain needed to distract and avoid certain allegations raised by Obama because he would have talked himself into a corner. Whereas, even on issues where Obama is worthy of criticism, he addressed the issues directly and honestly.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2770972
He's now attempting to argue that he should be elected because because he's the guy to reform the mistakes of the past eight (8) years. His credibility clearly comes into question because his record of Bush support is clear.

I st6ill haven't watched the debate, will do that tonight. Just wanted to point out the financial crisis we are in can actually be traced to legislation/executive branch mistakes the last 15 or so years. To pin this all on BUSH is not being completely honest.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2771031
I st6ill haven't watched the debate, will do that tonight. Just wanted to point out the financial crisis we are in can actually be traced to legislation/executive branch mistakes the last 15 or so years. To pin this all on BUSH is not being completely honest.
That's your opinion... others may or may not share that opinion. It is not an issue of honesty, just opinion.

 

[sickboy]

No, not entirely on Bush. Didn't Clinton sign a bill that led to major deregulation that was created by McCain? I could be wrong, I'm really just throwing it out there. I thought it was in like 97 or something.
As far as the financial crisis, I blame both parties for failed policies and incorrect regulation.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2771033
That's your opinion... others may or may not share that opinion. It is not an issue of honesty, just opinion.
No it is not opinion. you are telling me the adjustments made to who loans were given in 1992 were not at all an affect on who got loans? It didn't get people that couldn't truly afford said loans the loans? No it is fact, not opinion...Clinton through BUSH, they both carry this blame. Republicans and democrats in congress both carry this blame. Hell even some of the blame cqn fall on Carter and Reagan on deregulation bills they passed as well, if you believe deregulation was the problem. No matter what you believe was the problem ech aspect can actually be traced back to the carter years and the policies held by both administration and congress then, and there after.
So be it no oversight, deregulation, or the forced hand to give loans to those that can't afford it...each and all of them can be traced to before bush. This has been a problem waiting to happen for a very long time....do some research truly.

 

[triga22]

McCain did alright. All I heard from Obama was, Uhh. Umm. Uuhh. "I did not say that", and he didnt give straight answers.

 

[rebelprettyboy]

I thought Obama spoke very well

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2771042
No it is not opinion. you are telling me the adjustments made to who loans were given in 1992 were not at all an affect on who got loans? It didn't get people that couldn't truly afford said loans the loans? No it is fact, not opinion...Clinton through BUSH, they both carry this blame. Republicans and democrats in congress both carry this blame. Hell even some of the blame cqn fall on Carter and Reagan on deregulation bills they passed as well, if you believe deregulation was the problem. No matter what you believe was the problem ech aspect can actually be traced back to the carter years and the policies held by both administration and congress then, and there after.
So be it no oversight, deregulation, or the forced hand to give loans to those that can't afford it...each and all of them can be traced to before bush. This has been a problem waiting to happen for a very long time....do some research truly.
It's great that you figured it all out from your little computer on a SWF forum. You make it sound so simple. Whey aren't you the Secretary of Treasury or Chairman of the SEC?

Back to the point, though... even by your own words, if this was an issue that goes back at least 15 years, then Bush is responsible for a large portion of the blame. And McCain's support of Bush's policies is well documented. I believe the point that you addressed... but didn't really address... was when I said that McCain's new theory that he is the answer to the failures of the past 2 presidents shows his lack of credibility. Did you want to address that, or just go back into some left-field tangent?

 

[1knight164]

I lost count on how many times Obama said "John's right" or "Jim's right".

There's no doubt that Obama is a great speaker, but IMO it does not come close to experience. I don't think the job of President is a place for OJT!

 

[bionicarm]

I could really care less who created the problem. What I want is to get it fixed. My 401K is down almost 20%, and I have 60% of it in Fixed Funds. These idiots in Congress need to quit pointing fingers at one another, and drop partisan politics and come up with a viable solution. Personally, I think it's time to vote in Term Limits for the entire Congress, fire every person in both the House and Senate, and start all over again. Get rid of the Majority/Minority Party crap, and have an American Party. Do that, and you'll probably eliminate 90% of these under-the-table deals BOTH parties do right now.

 

[1knight164]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2771093
I could really care less who created the problem. What I want is to get it fixed. My 401K is down almost 20%, and I have 60% of it in Fixed Funds. These idiots in Congress need to quit pointing fingers at one another, and drop partisan politics and come up with a viable solution. Personally, I think it's time to vote in Term Limits for the entire Congress, fire every person in both the House and Senate, and start all over again. Get rid of the Majority/Minority Party crap, and have an American Party. Do that, and you'll probably eliminate 90% of these under-the-table deals BOTH parties do right now.
The only thing members of Congress are concerned about is their own behinds! They'll do or say anything to keep their seats. I'm all for term-limits!

 

[sickboy]

Originally Posted by 1knight164
http:///forum/post/2771101
The only thing members of Congress are concerned about is their own behinds! They'll do or say anything to keep their seats. I'm all for term-limits!
The State of Nebraska recently created term-limits. The state senators hate it, but it seems like all of the people are going to like it.