Last Nights Debate.

polaris

StrangestTribe27 wrote:

I think at this time you really need to vote based on previous history and not what they are saying in these debates or for the past year for that matter.

if that is the case - how can anyone vote for the GOP based on the past 8 years?

It_Wasnt_My_Surface

polaris wrote:

if that is the case - how can anyone vote for the GOP based on the past 8 years?

I was talking about McCain's previous history, not the party.

Gonzo1977

StrangestTribe27 wrote:

You show me 5 REAL facts as to how he is a mirror image of the last 8 years, how she lost the debate, and as to how Obama is going to change ANYTHING and I will respect this statement

Hmm...Let's see

Iraq, Womens Right to Choose, Gun Control, Nuclear Energy, Off Shore Drilling, Global Warming, Tax Cuts to the Rich, Health Care....

Need I continue?

As for Sarah Palin...

You actually think she won that debate against Biden??? Are you serious???

WOW!!!

Palin was so clearly out of her league. The notion that Sarah Palin won that debate simply because she didn't act like the halfwit blithering idiot that we saw during the past several weeks is nonsensical. No matter what stupid answers she gave on TV, the only standard at this debate is, "Can this person handle the job of being president at a moment's notice?" That's the ONLY thing that matters. Joe Biden CLEARLY passed that test. Sarah Palin did not. She flat out refused to answer most of the questions asked and only answered the ones that suited her. Biden gave clear well thought out answers and showed his awarness on a wide range of issues. He laid out both his and Obama's plans while Palin sat there and basically regurgitated the same Right Wing talking points spit out over the previous week.

saveuplife

polaris wrote:

haha ... i am more than calm i can assure ... so, calm enough that i can tell that you haven't read a thing i've written! ...

in any case - those two issues will define the last 8 years under bush ... a vote for the GOP is a vote for those two issues ... so, the three things you are Pro for - u got one ... tax cuts ...

To an extent you are right. I think Bush did a terrible job managing the war and he did awful when it comes to spending. He did OK when it comes to tax-cuts.

That said, according to what I wrote he did put in some Supreme Court Justices that interpret the law the way I would like them to. So, Bush did do a decent job with morals.... atleast if you align with the Republican viewpoint on that set of issues.

saveuplife

Gonzo1977 wrote:

Hmm...Let's see

Iraq, Womens Right to Choose, Gun Control, Nuclear Energy, Off Shore Drilling, Global Warming, Tax Cuts to the Rich, Health Care....

Need I continue?

As for Sarah Palin...

You actually think she won that debate against Biden??? Are you serious???

WOW!!!

Palin was so clearly out of her league. The notion that Sarah Palin won that debate simply because she didn't act like the halfwit blithering idiot that we saw during the past several weeks is nonsensical. No matter what stupid answers she gave on TV, the only standard at this debate is, "Can this person handle the job of being president at a moment's notice?" That's the ONLY thing that matters. Joe Biden CLEARLY passed that test. Sarah Palin did not. She flat out refused to answer most of the questions asked and only answered the ones that suited her. Biden gave clear well thought out answers and showed his awarness on a wide range of issues. He laid out both his and Obama's plans while Palin sat there and basically regurgitated the same Right Wing talking points spit out over the previous week.

I actually think the Presidential race would be closer if Palin was the nominee for President. I am being 100% sincere too.

It_Wasnt_My_Surface

Gonzo1977 wrote:

Hmm...Let's see

Iraq, Womens Right to Choose, Gun Control, Nuclear Energy, Off Shore Drilling, Global Warming, Tax Cuts to the Rich, Health Care....

Need I continue?

As for Sarah Palin...

You actually think she won that debate against Biden??? Are you serious???

WOW!!!

Palin was so clearly out of her league. The notion that Sarah Palin won that debate simply because she didn't act like the halfwit blithering idiot that we saw during the past several weeks is nonsensical. No matter what stupid answers she gave on TV, the only standard at this debate is, "Can this person handle the job of being president at a moment's notice?" That's the ONLY thing that matters. Joe Biden CLEARLY passed that test. Sarah Palin did not. She flat out refused to answer most of the questions asked and only answered the ones that suited her. Biden gave clear well thought out answers and showed his awarness on a wide range of issues. He laid out both his and Obama's plans while Palin sat there and basically regurgitated the same Right Wing talking points spit out over the previous week.

I don't think Palin won by a landslide, but I believe that Biden would have walked away with it had he not stated that he would infact love to run with McCain or have to constantly defend how he did not agree with Obama 6 months ago. I do not think she came out on top, but I think in that aspect it was a draw. As for your "facts", McCain's tax cuts to the rich is a blatant lie, and what the hell are you talking about Women's right to choose? If your talking about Abortion I'll be the first to tell you that whole arguement is bullshit. It's not in the Constitution, that means it should be decided by the states. I can't stand when people expect the Federal Government to decide shit like this. This also applies to Gay Marriage.

polaris

saveuplife wrote:

To an extent you are right. I think Bush did a terrible job managing the war and he did awful when it comes to spending. He did OK when it comes to tax-cuts.

That said, according to what I wrote he did put in some Supreme Court Justices that interpret the law the way I would like them to. So, Bush did do a decent job with morals.... atleast if you align with the Republican viewpoint on that set of issues.

morals shouldn't have a partisan slant ... you appoint people to positions because they would act without partisanship in the interests of the people and with the constitution as its backbone ...

i'm not gonna go into lengths but bush did a horrible job of appointing people at all levels ... between brown at fema and harriot miers to the supreme court ...

really tho - has there ever been a more divisive president as it pertains to appointments - sure, I guess if you are looking at it as a pro-lifer - i guess it's to your liking ...

Gonzo1977

saveuplife wrote:

I actually think the Presidential race would be closer if Palin was the nominee for President. I am being 100% sincere too.

Well...I can't disagree with you on this point. It's a dangerous and unfortunate truth that there is a large majority of people in this country that would vote for Sarah Plalin on the principle that she is "simple" and reflects the lowest common denominator of American Society. The fact that we could hold our potential leaders to such a low standard is both vile and utterly digusting.

saveuplife

polaris wrote:

morals shouldn't have a partisan slant ... you appoint people to positions because they would act without partisanship in the interests of the people and with the constitution as its backbone ...

i'm not gonna go into lengths but bush did a horrible job of appointing people at all levels ... between brown at fema and harriot miers to the supreme court ...

really tho - has there ever been a more divisive president as it pertains to appointments - sure, I guess if you are looking at it as a pro-lifer - i guess it's to your liking ...

Morals do have a partisan slant because people make up the parties and people have opinions on morals. It's a reality and it's not going away.

I don't think Bush did a bad job of appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's because I align with that ideology.

As far as divisiveness, I think he was average. Clinton's appointments seemed divisive as well. It all depends on your point of view, or where you start with your own political/moral opinion.

polaris

saveuplife wrote:

Morals do have a partisan slant because people make up the parties and people have opinions on morals. It's a reality and it's not going away.

I don't think Bush did a bad job of appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's because I align with that ideology.

As far as divisiveness, I think he was average. Clinton's appointments seemed divisive as well. It all depends on your point of view, or where you start with your own political/moral opinion.

well ... i think this is part of where i'm coming from ... it's similar to our discussion about gwen ifil ... i don't really care what your personal belief systems are as long as you are fit to do the job that is tasked before you objectively and openly as possible ...

america is so divided along partisan lines that often what is "right" is so often overlooked ...

saveuplife

Gonzo1977 wrote:

Well...I can't disagree with you on this point. It's a dangerous and unfortunate truth that there is a large majority of people in this country that would vote for Sarah Plalin on the principle that she is "simple" and reflects the lowest common denominator of American Society. The fact that we could hold our potential leaders to such a low standard is both vile and utterly digusting.

She's a solid politician. A leader? I don't know for sure.

A great leader (like a teacher) boils down complex problems to simplisitic ones and makes a decision. A job of a President is to make decisions and to delegate, not to show how eloquently they can speak or how much they can memorize.

saveuplife

polaris wrote:

america is so divided along partisan lines that often what is "right" is so often overlooked ...

I think you are dead-on.

If McCain could accurately say this and explain that he has tried to do just that I think he'd connect with voters... but, he's hasn't and I don't think he will.

To be fair to him, I really do think he is one of those "right" politicians. That said, I think that part of him has gotten lost in trying to win the Presidency. IF he has any hope, he needs to find it again.

blackredyellow

I just can't figure out what direction the McCain campaign is trying to go in...

One moment Palin is firing up the conservative base with her shots at Obama, the next moment McCain is giving conservatives the finger with this mortgage buy back program.

polaris

saveuplife wrote:

I think you are dead-on.

If McCain could accurately say this and explain that he has tried to do just that I think he'd connect with voters... but, he's hasn't and I don't think he will.

To be fair to him, I really do think he is one of those "right" politicians. That said, I think that part of him has gotten lost in trying to win the Presidency. IF he has any hope, he needs to find it again.

there would be a lot of people who would say so 8 years ago ... but that man is no longer there ... the GOP is bigger than the president and vice-president ... and that goes for the democrats as well ... the machine operates with purpose and it can't be changed by a senator who has already shown he has caved ...

Gonzo1977

StrangestTribe27 wrote:

As for your "facts", McCain's tax cuts to the rich is a blatant lie, and what the hell are you talking about Women's right to choose? If your talking about Abortion I'll be the first to tell you that whole arguement is bullshit. It's not in the Constitution, that means it should be decided by the states. I can't stand when people expect the Federal Government to decide shit like this. This also applies to Gay Marriage.

You asked me 5 things where McCain and Bush are similar. I think I gave you 8.

John McCain IS offering tax cuts to the rich. It's on his website. It's in his platform. Sure since he's been called out on it by both Obama and Biden he's flipped flopped like everthing else in this election. But the truth is that McCain's tax plan provides $700,000 tax cuts to every single person that is amoung the richest 2% of the population. This is Fact.

Secondly...I'm not going to tangle with you on Abortion issue because that may warrant an entirely new thread on it's own. The fact is that John McCain and George W. Bush have the exact same policy on abortion and the issue of abortion. They feel that it is illegal. Both men have gone on record that if given the chance, they would fight to make abortion illegal. This is also Fact.

blackredyellow

saveuplife wrote:

I actually think the Presidential race would be closer if Palin was the nominee for President. I am being 100% sincere too.

I just think that she is too decisive of a person/personality to be a serious nominee. Her negatives are going up everyday, and if she would have started campaigning a year ago, I think that she'd be old news at this point.

In my opinion, Mit Romney (as much as he annoys me) would have made the strongest republican candidate... Besides Romney, I just can't see where the republicans go in 2012.

momofglynn

saveuplife wrote:

I actually think the Presidential race would be closer if Palin was the nominee for President. I am being 100% sincere too.

That would like Ross Perot all over again. Meaning that since she is a throw away vote makes McCain and Obama look better? The biggest joke ever!

Palin=FUCKING SCARY! Seriously folks. She is a dangerous person to have in office. Encouraging teen marriages for the sake of a child?? How about what's best for her own child! Why on earth would Palin hide her own pregnancy from her family for almost 5 months? Regardless of the condition of the fetis, it just doesn't make sense. Going to war is god's way?? Using her power to have people removed from their jobs. Her smiling as she telling you the sky is falling. Fueling the fear factor every bit of the way! Just like the rest of them but worst, she can do it more convincingly. Just plain scary.

My friend called me up the day she was picked by McCain. She honestly thought I would be thrilled with his decision. She actually deemed it the best day ever. And that she cried since she was so happy, so happy that she might even put a McCain sign on her lawn.

Just prior to his announcement, I was truly on the fence. Once she was picked...it all change. I said to her "McCain lost my vote forever with the pick. He just threw away his chance at making it into the office with her. He has officially lost".

It_Wasnt_My_Surface

Gonzo1977 wrote:

Secondly...I'm not going to tangle with you on Abortion issue because that may warrant an entirely new thread on it's own. The fact is that John McCain and George W. Bush have the exact same policy on abortion and the issue of abortion. They feel that it is illegal. Both men have gone on record that if given the chance, they would fight to keep abortion illegal. This is also Fact.

I do not want to tangle with you on this issue either. I do not agree with the Republicans with this issue. I also am not sure that I agree entirely with the Democrats, but I certainly side with them a little more with the issue. I just think it should be up to each state.

BlackRedYellow - I will go on record as stating I voted for Mitt in the primaries. What a waste of a vote that was.

momofglynn

blackredyellow wrote:

I just think that she is too decisive of a person/personality to be a serious nominee. Her negatives are going up everyday, and if she would have started campaigning a year ago, I think that she'd be old news at this point.

In my opinion, Mit Romney (as much as he annoys me) would have made the strongest republican candidate... Besides Romney, I just can't see where the republicans go in 2012.

I think Mitt would be a good choice as to helping with this wall street clean up. I think he is a smart business man. I think he should used by either person in their cabinet. To not leverage his brain would be a disservice this country. I am a democrat by nature but I like few aspects of the Republican party. I think his reputation shows he can turn things around from the red to the black. Just my opinion.

polaris

StrangestTribe27 wrote:

I was talking about McCain's previous history, not the party.

mccain's recent history is the party's history