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.
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.
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.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
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 ...
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"...
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.
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.
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? ...
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.
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 ...
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.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
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.
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.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
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.
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?
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.
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.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
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.
You can't win a debate when you are playing stall ball....it was a smart move by Obama for sure, but he lost the debate.
You can't win a debate when you are playing stall ball....it was a smart move by Obama for sure, but he lost the debate.
I don't know how you can really say that.
There hasn't been a significant shift in the Polls. Obama is now leading McCain by double digits in Virginia as well as pulling away in key battleground states like Florida, Ohio, and Michigan.
The whole point of the debate is to sell yourself to the American People...John McCain has not done this. He hasn't gained any new voters after either of the 3 debates.
Obama came across as more likeable. He has done this in all 3 debates. He's maintained his cool, he's hit his key talking points; which at this point are just on steady repetition from now until November 4th.
McCain once again looked nasty, ugly, and old. His horrific facial expressions, blinking, and posture lost him the debate on Wednesday alone.
Attacking your opponent, going on and on about anything other than policy or issues doesn't resonate with the viewers. Even after he hit his famous line about not being George Bush...The CNN graph plunged.
As fickle as it may seem, people hate negativity. It just reminds them of why they hate politics in the first place.
If you don't believe me...Go back to the JFK vs. Nixon debate held on September 26, 1960. It was the first Televised Debate and after watching the debate...Nixon was just like McCain. He attacked Kennedy every chance he could. He raised his voice, he figgited, he looked old, ugly, and bitter.
In the aftermath, no matter what points on policy were hit, or how much Nixon slammed Kennedy on issues...All the people could talk about afterwards was uncomfortable Nixon looked.
The same after this last debate. All people could talk about afterwards was how uncomfortable McCain looked with his figgiting and constant blinking. He didn't look steady, he looked bitter, he looked old, and most of all...He looked ugly.
Say what you want about McCain and his performance. In the long run it doesn't matter.
I think Obama vs McCain is going to play out the same way as Nixon and Kennedy.
There hasn't been a significant shift in the Polls. Obama is now leading McCain by double digits in Virginia as well as pulling away in key battleground states like Florida, Ohio, and Michigan.
The whole point of the debate is to sell yourself to the American People...John McCain has not done this. He hasn't gained any new voters after either of the 3 debates.
Obama came across as more likeable. He has done this in all 3 debates. He's maintained his cool, he's hit his key talking points; which at this point are just on steady repetition from now until November 4th.
McCain once again looked nasty, ugly, and old. His horrific facial expressions, blinking, and posture lost him the debate on Wednesday alone.
Attacking your opponent, going on and on about anything other than policy or issues doesn't resonate with the viewers. Even after he hit his famous line about not being George Bush...The CNN graph plunged.
As fickle as it may seem, people hate negativity. It just reminds them of why they hate politics in the first place.
If you don't believe me...Go back to the JFK vs. Nixon debate held on September 26, 1960. It was the first Televised Debate and after watching the debate...Nixon was just like McCain. He attacked Kennedy every chance he could. He raised his voice, he figgited, he looked old, ugly, and bitter.
In the aftermath, no matter what points on policy were hit, or how much Nixon slammed Kennedy on issues...All the people could talk about afterwards was uncomfortable Nixon looked.
The same after this last debate. All people could talk about afterwards was how uncomfortable McCain looked with his figgiting and constant blinking. He didn't look steady, he looked bitter, he looked old, and most of all...He looked ugly.
Say what you want about McCain and his performance. In the long run it doesn't matter.
I think Obama vs McCain is going to play out the same way as Nixon and Kennedy.
Just Saying.
I'll just say I wasn't judging the debate by superficial things...Obama wins that everytime.
I'm a true independent voter, by record, and I have voted and will vote for the better man.
I voted Kerry in '04 not because he's not a tool, but because ultimately Bush f-ed up and that's where the buck stops. More heads should have rolled.
And many people are voting out of emotional attachement to Obama. They see his rhetoric on the mainstream media, paid for by corporate interests, about how he is going to fight against those same corporate interests. They believe the same media they despise.
"Prepare to be betrayed, Prepare to be disappointed" Nader on Cspan
There's plenty of criticism to go around.
Ultimately, the standard is not perfection, but who is the better man.
Look at the record. Vote with your head.
You keep saying vote with your head. YOu sound as much of a broken record and Joe the Plumber! You are honestly think that people will not? McCain doesn't do it for me. Never has never will. McCain doesn't do it for a lot of people. Obama is using my head. I used my head in 2000, and again in 2004. Both times the man that got elected wasn't the person who won. If it happens a 3rd time, I think my head will explode!
You keep saying vote with your head. YOu sound as much of a broken record and Joe the Plumber! You are honestly think that people will not? McCain doesn't do it for me. Never has never will. McCain doesn't do it for a lot of people. Obama is using my head. I used my head in 2000, and again in 2004. Both times the man that got elected wasn't the person who won. If it happens a 3rd time, I think my head will explode!
the point, really, is that there is too much forming of opinion using mainstream media as the basis for our info, or propaganda films like zeitgeist, or propagandists like Naomi Wolf.
The actual record, the actual legislation, the actual policies, are what the people should really be forming judgement with. Examining all of that in the light of history and the founding principles. Not someone's take, or pieces of this or that.
I just wish to keep emphasising the point. Those who DO put in the time might find the idea condescending. That's okay.
But, to be real, it's very difficult to find the time to sort it all out.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
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"...
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.
do you think bush sets policy? ... honestly?
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.
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? ...
And I say again, you're the last person in this thread who should be telling anyone to "look at the record."
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 ...
Well, can't change your mind, but it's going to happen.
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.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
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
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.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
it's called partisanship ...
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.
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.
-Reagan
And people try and say that liberals are condescending...
Guess what, I've looked at both of their records...
And I'm an independent...
And there is no possible worse choice than McCain/ Palin...
Seriously, look at the record.
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...
You can't win a debate when you are playing stall ball....it was a smart move by Obama for sure, but he lost the debate.
I don't know how you can really say that.
There hasn't been a significant shift in the Polls. Obama is now leading McCain by double digits in Virginia as well as pulling away in key battleground states like Florida, Ohio, and Michigan.
The whole point of the debate is to sell yourself to the American People...John McCain has not done this. He hasn't gained any new voters after either of the 3 debates.
Obama came across as more likeable. He has done this in all 3 debates. He's maintained his cool, he's hit his key talking points; which at this point are just on steady repetition from now until November 4th.
McCain once again looked nasty, ugly, and old. His horrific facial expressions, blinking, and posture lost him the debate on Wednesday alone.
Attacking your opponent, going on and on about anything other than policy or issues doesn't resonate with the viewers. Even after he hit his famous line about not being George Bush...The CNN graph plunged.
As fickle as it may seem, people hate negativity. It just reminds them of why they hate politics in the first place.
If you don't believe me...Go back to the JFK vs. Nixon debate held on September 26, 1960. It was the first Televised Debate and after watching the debate...Nixon was just like McCain. He attacked Kennedy every chance he could. He raised his voice, he figgited, he looked old, ugly, and bitter.
In the aftermath, no matter what points on policy were hit, or how much Nixon slammed Kennedy on issues...All the people could talk about afterwards was uncomfortable Nixon looked.
The same after this last debate. All people could talk about afterwards was how uncomfortable McCain looked with his figgiting and constant blinking. He didn't look steady, he looked bitter, he looked old, and most of all...He looked ugly.
Say what you want about McCain and his performance. In the long run it doesn't matter.
I think Obama vs McCain is going to play out the same way as Nixon and Kennedy.
Just Saying.
I'll just say I wasn't judging the debate by superficial things...Obama wins that everytime.
I agree. I don't watch it for that either.
But you can't deny the effect it has.
I agree it certainly has an effect.
You keep saying vote with your head. YOu sound as much of a broken record and Joe the Plumber! You are honestly think that people will not? McCain doesn't do it for me. Never has never will. McCain doesn't do it for a lot of people. Obama is using my head. I used my head in 2000, and again in 2004. Both times the man that got elected wasn't the person who won. If it happens a 3rd time, I think my head will explode!
the point, really, is that there is too much forming of opinion using mainstream media as the basis for our info, or propaganda films like zeitgeist, or propagandists like Naomi Wolf.
The actual record, the actual legislation, the actual policies, are what the people should really be forming judgement with. Examining all of that in the light of history and the founding principles. Not someone's take, or pieces of this or that.
I just wish to keep emphasising the point. Those who DO put in the time might find the idea condescending. That's okay.
But, to be real, it's very difficult to find the time to sort it all out.