Last Nights Debate.

It_Wasnt_My_Surface

polaris wrote:

mccain's recent history is the party's history

I agree with more of McCain then Obama....I don't agree with every aspect of his doctrine. I don't agree with the negative things of the party. Obviously I'm not an idiot. I just think McCain will do a better job at getting us out then Obama. I mean if you think anyone is getting tax cuts in the next 10 years your out of your mind. Both parties say this is going to happen, but we all know it won't

polaris

StrangestTribe27 wrote:

I agree with more of McCain then Obama....I don't agree with every aspect of his doctrine. I don't agree with the negative things of the party. Obviously I'm not an idiot. I just think McCain will do a better job at getting us out then Obama. I mean if you think anyone is getting tax cuts in the next 10 years your out of your mind. Both parties say this is going to happen, but we all know it won't

so ... you're saying the negative things associated with bush aren't negative enuf for you to not vote for them?

It_Wasnt_My_Surface

polaris wrote:

so ... you're saying the negative things associated with bush aren't negative enuf for you to not vote for them?

No I'm saying I agree with more with McCain then with Obama on a lot of issues. I just think and it's only my opinion, that Obama has too many negatives for me.

saveuplife

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.

Decisive or Devisive? I see little wrong with decisive. If you meant devisive, I don't think so. It's interesting actually, that you bring that up. Why does the left always consider a candidate "devisive" when aren't to their liking? I mean Obama could be considered devisive. But, I don't think the right would ever say that.

She performed very well and the convention and in the debate. She's new to big-ticket political scene. With a year or two of studying (like Obama) I think she'd be hard to beat.

blackredyellow

saveuplife wrote:

Decisive or Devisive? I see little wrong with decisive. If you meant devisive, I don't think so. It's interesting actually, that you bring that up. Why does the left always consider a candidate "devisive" when aren't to their liking? I mean Obama could be considered devisive. But, I don't think the right would ever say that.

She performed very well and the convention and in the debate. She's new to big-ticket political scene. With a year or two of studying (like Obama) I think she'd be hard to beat.

Sorry, I meant divisive... Policy-wise, while I greatly disagree with her, I wouldn't consider her divisive, but as far as personality, in my opinion she really is. Part of it may be her role in the campaign as an attack dog, but she just comes off in her speeches as she as "joe six pack" gets it, and no one else really does... like there is a genuine contempt for people not like her (whatever that is).

dignin

saveuplife wrote:

Pro-war? Come on, man. You are obviously fired up, but do you have to go there?

I am not pro-war. I am not pro-deficits. That said I am pro-defense. I am pro-tax-cuts. I am pro-spending cuts. And I agree with the Republican take on morals.... with a few exceptions (ie death sentence).

I don't always vote Republican though..... so you are wrong.

Take a deep breath and calm down. Your prefered candidate will be in office soon.

i dont know if this has been said before, but why dont you vote Ron Paul? You can still write his name on the ballot right?

saveuplife

yield6 wrote:

i dont know if this has been said before, but why dont you vote Ron Paul? You can still write his name on the ballot right?

#1. He won't win.

#2. I'm not also not a huge fan of his. He's great in his current role, but not as President.

saveuplife

blackredyellow wrote:

Sorry, I meant divisive... Policy-wise, while I greatly disagree with her, I wouldn't consider her divisive, but as far as personality, in my opinion she really is. Part of it may be her role in the campaign as an attack dog, but she just comes off in her speeches as she as "joe six pack" gets it, and no one else really does... like there is a genuine contempt for people not like her (whatever that is).

Actually that's very interesting.

I am wondering why the media and the left consider her (and Bush before her) so devisive. It makes sense. She's not a blue-stater. Kinda like what you said above. She's speaking red-state language. That makes her polarizing because blue-staters don't get her style because it's not blue-state style. Then the remarks about how she's stupid start, which backfire because it fires up the red base.

Ironically, the opposite always happens with the Dem candidate. They always appear professorial, talking down to their audience. The red-staters don't understand why the guy is talking down to them as if they are not smart enough.

The one time this was not the case was Clinton. He had a blue-state and red-state style.

blackredyellow

saveuplife wrote:

Actually that's very interesting.

I am wondering why the media and the left consider her (and Bush before her) so devisive. It makes sense. She's not a blue-stater. Kinda like what you said above. She's speaking red-state language. That makes her polarizing because blue-staters don't get her style because it's not blue-state style. Then the remarks about how she's stupid start, which backfire because it fires up the red base.

Ironically, the opposite always happens with the Dem candidate. They always appear professorial, talking down to their audience. The red-staters don't understand why the guy is talking down to them as if they are not smart enough.

The one time this was not the case was Clinton. He had a blue-state and red-state style.

It's all about perception, and perception is reality. Geographically more than anything, people relate to people differently. A high-strung new yorker or laid back west coast surfer doesn't play well in the south, and a good ol' boy from Alabama doesn't come across well to people in the northeast.

I just don't understand the whole idea of the candidate who you would like to have a beer with, or whatever. The general manager of the company that I work for can't seem to carry an everyday conversation with his employees, but he runs the business very well and is good at what he does. I would rather have that than a guy who I'd like to hang out with, but runs the business poorly.

I guess for a lot of voting people, an emotional connection means more to them than what it does to me.

Clinton did have both... a red state way of relating/communicating, with blue state policies.

saveuplife

blackredyellow wrote:

It's all about perception, and perception is reality. Geographically more than anything, people relate to people differently. A high-strung new yorker or laid back west coast surfer doesn't play well in the south, and a good ol' boy from Alabama doesn't come across well to people in the northeast.

I just don't understand the whole idea of the candidate who you would like to have a beer with, or whatever. The general manager of the company that I work for can't seem to carry an everyday conversation with his employees, but he runs the business very well and is good at what he does. I would rather have that than a guy who I'd like to hang out with, but runs the business poorly.

I guess for a lot of voting people, an emotional connection means more to them than what it does to me.

Clinton did have both... a red state way of relating/communicating, with blue state policies.

I think the "have a beer with" thing is really saying that they are down to earth. I can understand why that would be important. People want someone in office that can relate to people in every day life.

jimed14

saveuplife wrote:

I think the "have a beer with" thing is really saying that they are down to earth. I can understand why that would be important. People want someone in office that can relate to people in every day life.

unfortunately, it's the people that shoot off potato guns and huff paint that feel they can relate to Palin in every day life.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Gonzo1977 wrote:

I don't know what's worse...The fact that you voted for Bush twice, or the fact that you'd actually go back and vote him in again.

The Conservative Right never ceases to amaze me.

It's what Jesus would do...kill the muslims..

Solat13

This column from the Politico sums up how I felt about the debate last night:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14396.html

I just wish I could get back the 90+ minutes I wasted watching it.

xavier mcdaniel

a lot of things from both sides, didn't really make sense. but whoever wins will have a hard time getting things done with that little thing known as the 11 trillion debt...

digster

saveuplife wrote:

Actually that's very interesting.

I am wondering why the media and the left consider her (and Bush before her) so devisive. It makes sense. She's not a blue-stater. Kinda like what you said above. She's speaking red-state language. That makes her polarizing because blue-staters don't get her style because it's not blue-state style. Then the remarks about how she's stupid start, which backfire because it fires up the red base.

Ironically, the opposite always happens with the Dem candidate. They always appear professorial, talking down to their audience. The red-staters don't understand why the guy is talking down to them as if they are not smart enough.

The one time this was not the case was Clinton. He had a blue-state and red-state style.

I think what separates Palin from Obama and Biden (and John McCain and George W. Bush, for that matter) is the outright contempt she seems to have for such a significant portion of the electorate. I don't think she's stupid by any stretch of the imagination; I think the Katie Couric interviews were her tripping up in an attempt to relay talking points, but I don't think the problem is that she is unintelligent. I think it's a much different problem, and a worse one at that.

I don't like the hyper-partisanship that verges on hatred that exists between the different groups and different political parties. I mean, in some way it's not surprising that a bunch of liberal, elitist smug asshole intellectuals and a bunch of redneck, inbred morons would not get along with each other, and might be hateful of each other. However, the fact is, they're all Americans; it's cliched, but it's true. However, whereas the people may hate each other, the candidates must be bi-partisan in the sense that they are aiming to be the leader of all Americans (of course, unless you're a Wall Street CEO; then you're shat on by all candidates).

Sarah Palin breaks this mold; she does not seem to like Obama, which is unsurprising, but she seems to have a surprising amount of contempt for those "East coaster elitists", which are a rather large part of the electorate. I honestly cannot remember a presidential or vice presidential candidate in my lifetime that has not only been hateful towards the opposing candidate (which admittedly, is nothing new), but has also been hateful towards a significant portion of the people she is applying to lead. Maybe there's some candidate I'm forgetting, but I don't remember Clinton, Reagan, Kerry, either of the Bushes or Cheney expressing that kind of contempt. It's a little disconcerting to see that kind of attitude and atmosphere encouraged by a vice presidential candidate.

saveuplife

digster wrote:

I think what separates Palin from Obama and Biden (and John McCain and George W. Bush, for that matter) is the outright contempt she seems to have for such a significant portion of the electorate. I don't think she's stupid by any stretch of the imagination; I think the Katie Couric interviews were her tripping up in an attempt to relay talking points, but I don't think the problem is that she is unintelligent. I think it's a much different problem, and a worse one at that.

I don't like the hyper-partisanship that verges on hatred that exists between the different groups and different political parties. I mean, in some way it's not surprising that a bunch of liberal, elitist smug asshole intellectuals and a bunch of redneck, inbred morons would not get along with each other, and might be hateful of each other. However, the fact is, they're all Americans; it's cliched, but it's true. However, whereas the people may hate each other, the candidates must be bi-partisan in the sense that they are aiming to be the leader of all Americans (of course, unless you're a Wall Street CEO; then you're shat on by all candidates).

Sarah Palin breaks this mold; she does not seem to like Obama, which is unsurprising, but she seems to have a surprising amount of contempt for those "East coaster elitists", which are a rather large part of the electorate. I honestly cannot remember a presidential or vice presidential candidate in my lifetime that has not only been hateful towards the opposing candidate (which admittedly, is nothing new), but has also been hateful towards a significant portion of the people she is applying to lead. Maybe there's some candidate I'm forgetting, but I don't remember Clinton, Reagan, Kerry, either of the Bushes or Cheney expressing that kind of contempt. It's a little disconcerting to see that kind of attitude and atmosphere encouraged by a vice presidential candidate.

I just don't see what you are seeing. I don't see her bashing east coast elitists. But for the sake of argument, let's say she used that term... "east coast elitists"... I see no problem with it because she said elitists which was the noun. The other two terms are adjectives. She's bashing the elitists in the east coast, more specificially DC. Now if east coasters was the noun, I'd agree with you.

nothinghead

saveuplife wrote:

I just don't see what you are seeing. I don't see her bashing east coast elitists. But for the sake of argument, let's say she used that term... "east coast elitists"... I see no problem with it because she said elitists which was the noun. The other two terms are adjectives. She's bashing the elitists in the east coast, more specificially DC. Now if east coasters was the noun, I'd agree with you.

I think it's a bit of a loaded phrase in the manner that it's used.

If (or when, I'm sure it's been said before) a liberal begins spouting off about their contempt for those "redneck southerners," it takes on a different connotation.

In the latter case, it's a assumed that it's only those who are perhaps racially prejudiced or blinded by religious ideals to a fanatic level. Yet, I have the feeling that many people supporting said liberal would view that as a larger percentage of the south than it truly is. Likewise, it seems the people supporting Palin's statements may fall in to the same trap of over-estimating the number of people being discussed or playing a little fast and loose with the definition or intention.

Of course, whenever anyone uses either phrase, they know this is going to happen. They understand that this is the point of stereotyping in the first place.

I don't know, I'm not explaining this well, I don't think. Ugh, I need a drink or something.

Trailer

I agree with this article.. Worst Debate Ever

digster

saveuplife wrote:

I just don't see what you are seeing. I don't see her bashing east coast elitists. But for the sake of argument, let's say she used that term... "east coast elitists"... I see no problem with it because she said elitists which was the noun. The other two terms are adjectives. She's bashing the elitists in the east coast, more specificially DC. Now if east coasters was the noun, I'd agree with you.

The proof is in the pudding; look at what we've been hearing about in regards to these Florida gatherings. I don't hold Palin personally responsible to the reprehensible actions taken by her supporters, but it does show that the environment is toxic nonetheless. But let's say you're right; let's say she said 'east-coast elitists' as opposed to 'east coasters'. Let's go even further; let's say she said 'east-coast elitist liberal media intellectual Ivy Leaguers.' It's still encouraging hatred towards something more than a policy position or a candidate; it's hatred towards people to stir the base. When has Barack Obama done this? John McCain? Dick Cheney? That type of language and intent is quite a bit further than the typical 'red meat' of a stump speech. I don't like candidates egging on the hatred of a candidate, but I accept that it exists. What I cannot stand for is a candidate egging on the hatred of another section of the voting bloc. It's extremely un-presidential.

josevolution

i've read every post from this thread and all i can say is that i'm so happy that i'm not friendly with any of you's ,you guys are all f'n scary and racist all you have to do is read between the lines .....