The Final Debate Thread

digster

polaris wrote:

seriously ... i've said it before ... but anyone who is voting for mccain is clearly partisan ... no true independent would reward the last 8 years with another 4 ...

I wouldn't go that far; I can understand people voting for McCain, but this poster is clearly not the independent mind he claims to be. And it wouldn't have rubbed me the wrong way if he had not been lecturing us earlier about how all Obama supporters were 'zombies' and needed to look at the record.

digster

prytoj wrote:

We did that good work today for the few people here, and I thank you

Debate involves two points of view, you gotta deal with that.

Debates involve two points of view, but the facts are the matter are the facts of the matter. The argument was this:

1) One poster said that the board in Alaska had found that Governor Palin had acted unethically and abused her power.
2) You said that the board in Alaska had found that she did not act unethically, that they had cleared her.

There are not two equal points of view in that argument. Although this rarely happens in debate, one side is right and one side is wrong. You were the side that is wrong, and I just am frustrated by people who refuse to admit when they've been wrong. There are not equal sides to this debate; there is the side that the facts prove and the side that the facts disprove. You were the latter.

blackredyellow

prytoj wrote:

Palin's overall record of service is largely ignored.
The overwhelming obsessive pursuit of this sole issue is evidence of that.

I think that the majority of the blame for that rests on her and the McCain campaign. If she wanted to talk about her record, she could have easily done a couple dozen interviews and gotten all of that out there. Instead, all we hear from her is that she is a "reformer" and a "maverick", and a couple of bullet points that she highlights in her stump speech.

Then she goes on Rush's show and claims that the mainstream media is somehow trying to make her sit down and shut her up, but she's the one who won't talk to them and instead vilifies them for political points with the base.

polaris

yeah ... in most situations - i agree with you guys ... but in this particular instance as it relates to the GOP ... i think it to be the case ...

if a company screwed over its customers for 8 years - do you automatically start buying their product because they changed the characters in the commercial?? ... this is how i see the republican party - although the guy selling the goods is different - company is still the same ... would anyone vote for bush if he was allowed to run again?? ... would an independent vote for bush?? ... i think the answer is no to both questions ...

cincybearcat

polaris wrote:

yeah ... in most situations - i agree with you guys ... but in this particular instance as it relates to the GOP ... i think it to be the case ...

if a company screwed over its customers for 8 years - do you automatically start buying their product because they changed the characters in the commercial?? ... this is how i see the republican party - although the guy selling the goods is different - company is still the same ... would anyone vote for bush if he was allowed to run again?? ... would an independent vote for bush?? ... i think the answer is no to both questions ...

It's not changing the characters in the commercial, it's changing the CEO...the management..."Under new Management"...

digster

polaris wrote:

yeah ... in most situations - i agree with you guys ... but in this particular instance as it relates to the GOP ... i think it to be the case ...

if a company screwed over its customers for 8 years - do you automatically start buying their product because they changed the characters in the commercial?? ... this is how i see the republican party - although the guy selling the goods is different - company is still the same ... would anyone vote for bush if he was allowed to run again?? ... would an independent vote for bush?? ... i think the answer is no to both questions ...

Well, I think many independents, as their title declares, don't vote according to party. Many independents might not necessarily disbelieve in the tenets of Republican government, but do think Bush has been an incompetent leader. They might think McCain would make a better Republican leader (which I don't think anyone under the sun would doubt). So, it's not that according to them Bush represents the Republican party, but that he is a bad example of the Repiblican Party. And people may not believe that McCain's policies would be similar to Bush. His voting record disputes that notion, but people may feel otherwise. I don't agree with that logic, and think it's faulty, but I understand how someone could come to that conclusion.

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

It's not changing the characters in the commercial, it's changing the CEO...the management..."Under new Management"...

do you think bush sets policy? ... honestly?

prytoj

blackredyellow wrote:

I think that the majority of the blame for that rests on her and the McCain campaign. If she wanted to talk about her record, she could have easily done a couple dozen interviews and gotten all of that out there. Instead, all we hear from her is that she is a "reformer" and a "maverick", and a couple of bullet points that she highlights in her stump speech.

Then she goes on Rush's show and claims that the mainstream media is somehow trying to make her sit down and shut her up, but she's the one who won't talk to them and instead vilifies them for political points with the base.

not true, if you look in on the campaign trail.

either way, please apply the same standard to Obama, who has never detailed any meaningful record of service.

McCain, however....
the same standard....
look at the record.

polaris

digster wrote:

Well, I think many independents, as their title declares, don't vote according to party. Many independents might not necessarily disbelieve in the tenets of Republican government, but do think Bush has been an incompetent leader. They might think McCain would make a better Republican leader (which I don't think anyone under the sun would doubt). So, it's not that according to them Bush represents the Republican party, but that he is a bad example of the Repiblican Party. And people may not believe that McCain's policies would be similar to Bush. His voting record disputes that notion, but people may feel otherwise. I don't agree with that logic, and think it's faulty, but I understand how someone could come to that conclusion.

well ... i think a true independent voter votes independent ... one that decides between republican or democrat are called "undecided" or "swing" voters in my opinion ...

in either case - on the assumption that most would not approve of the last 8 years - how can you vote for the same party again? ...

digster

prytoj wrote:

look at the record.

And I say again, you're the last person in this thread who should be telling anyone to "look at the record."

digster

polaris wrote:

well ... i think a true independent voter votes independent ... one that decides between republican or democrat are called "undecided" or "swing" voters in my opinion ...

in either case - on the assumption that most would not approve of the last 8 years - how can you vote for the same party again? ...

If they think Obama is an empty suit, they might not want to vote for him. I don't agree with that, and I think it's pretty clear that he's not an empty suit, but others may look at him and his past and see something different.

polaris

digster wrote:

If they think Obama is an empty suit, they might not want to vote for him. I don't agree with that, and I think it's pretty clear that he's not an empty suit, but others may look at him and his past and see something different.

i just don't see a true independent voting for mccain ...

digster

polaris wrote:

i just don't see a true independent voting for mccain ...

Well, can't change your mind, but it's going to happen.

blackredyellow

prytoj wrote:

not true, if you look in on the campaign trail.

either way, please apply the same standard to Obama, who has never detailed any meaningful record of service.

McCain, however....
the same standard....
look at the record.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about why her record is ignored, and that is because she (and the campaign) is not talking about it. Besides the "reformer" and "maverick" buzzwords, they don't even talk about her record besides a few bullet points. You can't blame the media for not getting her record out there if she refuses to talk about it.

prytoj

blackredyellow wrote:

What are you talking about? I'm talking about why her record is ignored, and that is because she (and the campaign) is not talking about it. Besides the "reformer" and "maverick" buzzwords, they don't even talk about her record besides a few bullet points. You can't blame the media for not getting her record out there if she refuses to talk about it.

yeah, i'll buy that they're not long on specifics. you're right.

one things for sure,

If i hear "maverick" one more time I'm gonna puke.
glad they stopped that.

McCain Palin '08

Its Evolution Baby

prytoj wrote:

The fact that people think Obama won that debate, shows me that the idiots have truly taken over.

Pulling out hair...

So you win debates by eye rolling, not answering the questions, and making up lies.

I didn't know that.

Obama WON the debate clearly bc he stayed on subject and didn't get baited into a war of words with McCain.

McCain didn't say a thing the whole night. I learned more about McCain's plans from Obama tonight as he refuted them more then I have heard McCain talk about them.

Plus Obama had the line of the night when he said something to the effect of if your campaign is about the people I associate with then you really don't have a platform to run on.

That was B-E-A-utiful.

polaris

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

So you win debates by eye rolling, not answering the questions, and making up lies.

I didn't know that.

Obama WON the debate clearly bc he stayed on subject and didn't get baited into a war of words with McCain.

McCain didn't say a thing the whole night. I learned more about McCain's plans from Obama tonight as he refuted them more then I have heard McCain talk about them.

Plus Obama had the line of the night when he said something to the effect of if your campaign is about the people I associate with then you really don't have a platform to run on.

That was B-E-A-utiful.

it's called partisanship ...

YieldInHiding

Gonzo1977 wrote:

Obama came out really flat at the begining and was on defence for most of the first part of the debate.

I gotta say...McCain stopped Obama dead in his tracks with the whole:

"I'm not George Bush...Mr. Obama if you want to run against George W Bush, You should have run 4 years ago".

As much as I loath John McCain, I give him credit on that one...It was a total burn, and It really knocked Obama against the ropes.

But that being said...Once the smoke cleared, it was obvious once again that John McCain really doesn't have either the plan or temperment to lead the United States for the next 4 years.

The whole McCain demanding an apology from Obama over something that
A REPUBLICAN SAID was just ridiculous. McCain kept pressing Obama on the AYERS issue and ACORN even after Obama had already addressed it. It was like he wasn't even listening.

McCain just kept blabbering on and on trying to bait Obama, and as the debate wore on it was clear that McCain had nothing. Obama just kept his cool and really made McCain look like a crochety old fool.

McCain's body language was hilarious. He could barely contain his anger. You just see the utter contempt that he has for Obama and the total fustration as he realized that he's fighting a losing battle. McCain knows he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning this election and it just burns him up inside.

The burn you refer to wasn't that much of a burn. You heard Obama's response right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwe70sAdBjI

Gonzo1977

YieldInHiding wrote:

The burn you refer to wasn't that much of a burn. You heard Obama's response right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwe70sAdBjI

Hey man no doubt.
Obama cut him off at every pass. He took the shot like a champ.

But even I can admitt that, McGramps threw out a real zinger there. It was absolute hogwash and obviously something the Karl Rove gang had drilled into his head.

It was a decent shot especially after the last 2 debates where Obama pumbled him on that issue and has been for the entire campaign.

MattyJoe

inmytree wrote:

Socialism is the new Liberal....

It's not so new. Socialism has been Liberal for a while. Before that, Liberal was Capitalism! But now it has switched. Conservative is Capitalism and Liberal is Socialism.