NationStates Jolt Archive

John McCain's camp has released an ad claiming victory in Friday's debate. Yes, that debate. Yes, that debate. Yes. THAT debate.

The Washington Post reported Friday that the campaign was running an online ad featuring the headline: "McCain Wins Debate!" and a photo of a smiling McCain and an American flag background. Another featured a quote from McCain campaign manager Rick Davis: "McCain won the debate — hands down."

So not only is McCain claiming victory in the debate, but they either forged a quote by his campaign manager, or the manager felt sufficiently disconnected from ethics, to speak about a debate that has not happened yet

Source (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/mccain-camp-releases-ad-claiming-debate-victory/)

Now, I don't mind them prepping an ad, it's good to have some template ready. I know the eve befor emost presidential elections, most newspapers already have template front pages ready for whomever wins. And this one, it seems, accidentally got released.

But to include a quote, to actually make a comment about a debate, to be used in an add...that's...highly unethical in my opinion. So, thoughts?

It probably won't happen now that McCain's suspended his campaign. It sickens me that he's apparently willing to use an economic crisis to duck out when he's loosing (of course he can also attack Barrack for "carring more about winning an election than helping his country").

Of course, nobly suspending his campaing in a time of crisis has not stopped McCain from running attack adds, I see.

Just saw this on C&L, and was about to post it. Darn you!!


Anyways, this reminds me of the onion piece that talked about there was already a winner in the election.


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/04/onion.html

Republicans would never be unethical.


No seriously, this is pathetic. Whats even more pathetic is they even expect McCain to get anything but beat down.

It probably won't happen now that McCain's suspended his campaign. It sickens me that he's apparently willing to use an economic crisis to duck out when he's loosing (of course he can also attack Barrack for "carring more about winning an election than helping his country").

Of course, nobly suspending his campaing in a time of crisis has not stopped McCain from running attack adds, I see.

The debate is back on tonight. And you are right, his campaign was never suspended.

lol!!!! Classic GOP.

I haven't got a television; does anyone know where I can find a transcript of the debate?

I think McCain's moved beyond caring about truth.

What a maverick!

The more I see how pathetically unethical and unconcerned with the truth McCain's campaign is, the more I get this sick feeling that we're going to have an election literally stolen.

The debate is back on tonight.

That's a relief. I'm looking forward to seeing the debate that McCain's already won. It wouldn't be as good if the debate he won didn't happen.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/winnah.jpg

$20 says that even if McCain calls Obama a ******, shits his pants, passes out, stutters 90% of his words, and forgets its 2008 rather then 1970, they still release this ad and claim he won hands down.

The more I see how pathetically unethical and unconcerned with the truth McCain's campaign is, the more I get this sick feeling that we're going to have an election literally stolen.

I think we’re more likely to see a John McCain proudly swearing to uphold the office of President of the United States, in his kitchen, hand on a phone book, wearing ratty pajamas, unshaven and clearly deranged while his wife looks on worriedly from the living room

The more I see how pathetically unethical and unconcerned with the truth McCain's campaign is, the more I get this sick feeling that we're going to have an election literally stolen.

Stolen? No. I think the American public is stupid enough to believe what McCain is the messiah of this nation. You don't know how many people I hear using all the talking points that he has. The very idea that anyone in this country could believe any of what he says has caused me to realize that Americans are not the smartest of people.

I think we’re more likely to see a John McCain proudly swearing to uphold the office of President of the United States, in his kitchen, hand on a phone book, wearing ratty pajamas, unshaven and clearly deranged while his wife looks on worriedly from the living room

On second thought, this is far more likely.

$20 says that even if McCain calls Obama a ******, shits his pants, passes out, stutters 90% of his words, and forgets its 2008 rather then 1970, they still release this ad and claim he won hands down.

No way, dude, that's my last $20...

John McCain's camp has released an ad claiming victory in Friday's debate. Yes, that debate. Yes, that debate. Yes. THAT debate.



So not only is McCain claiming victory in the debate, but they either forged a quote by his campaign manager, or the manager felt sufficiently disconnected from ethics, to speak about a debate that has not happened yet

Source (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/mccain-camp-releases-ad-claiming-debate-victory/)

Now, I don't mind them prepping an ad, it's good to have some template ready. I know the eve befor emost presidential elections, most newspapers already have template front pages ready for whomever wins. And this one, it seems, accidentally got released.

But to include a quote, to actually make a comment about a debate, to be used in an add...that's...highly unethical in my opinion. So, thoughts?

Awesome.

They claimed victory... then, a few minutes later... said they were going to be taking part. That's just a new degree of awesome.

The debate is back on tonight. And you are right, his campaign was never suspended.

Yesterday they said it was. I guess it was just a cheap political gimmic. Good to hear the debate's back on.

And the fact that McCain is still quite likely to win makes my blood boil at times.

edit: the election, not the debate

And the fact that McCain is still quite likely to win makes my blood boil at times.

In what world is McCain likely to win?

And the fact that McCain is still quite likely to win makes my blood boil at times.

edit: the election, not the debate

Ellectoral College math still gives Obama a decent shot. And I don't think the economy's a good issue for McCain.

the big danger is that Democrats will beleive McCain will win, stop donating to Obama, and stay home on ellection day. Thus creating a self-fullfilling prophecy.

In what world is McCain likely to win?

The spin room where a McCain campaign operative will be interviewed by a cable news channel.

Ellectoral College math still gives Obama a decent shot. And I don't think the economy's a good issue for McCain.

Agreed! I'm surprised that McCain's doing as well as he is in the polls, but I think Obama's got a better than even chance. And I predict he'll kick McCain's butt in the debate. :p

In what world is McCain likely to win?

This is the same America that elected George W. Bush..TWICE. Don't underestimate the ignorance of most Americans.

Republicans would never be unethical.


No seriously, this is pathetic. Whats even more pathetic is they even expect McCain to get anything but beat down.

To be honest, I expected that Nader had a better chance at president two years ago than McCain. However, the Clinton/Biden split at the convention opened the door to what would have been a major upset.

Now that there's little ambiguity as to whether or not Clinton should have been Obama's VP, it's gonna be a blue banner day in November, no doubt. I'm seriously considering going Independent to express my disgust in where the Republican party is going.

When did political spin evolve into blatant lying again?

Who decides on the winner anyway? Is there a vote, or is it an unofficial conclusion?

When did political spin evolve into blatant lying again?

When politicians learned to talk? :p

This is the same America that elected George W. Bush..TWICE. Don't underestimate the ignorance of most Americans.

I think it's more a fault of people thinking that they HAVE to vote on their party lines. The whole "If I'm not this, then I'm that, and I hate that, so I must be this" kind of thinking.

I mean, that's of course good old fashioned ignorance, but I hope that it's more true than just plain old ignorance, if you catch my drift. :)

When did political spin evolve into blatant lying again?

Roughly 600BC. Democracy is beautiful!

Because McCain won the debate before it happened, John McCain has now chosen to suspend his campaign to focus on combating the problem of random time shifts all over the country.

When did political spin evolve into blatant lying again?

the sad part is, many Republicans will probably beleive this add without checking the facts, leading them to think that McCain already won and tonight's debate is, in fact, a replay. Many will also probably beleive that he actually suspended his campaing, and aplaud this selfless dessision.

Of course, that's probably the same percentage of the voters who beleive Obama is a Muslim.

Who decides on the winner anyway? Is there a vote, or is it an unofficial conclusion?

All the commentators and critics get together and perform a Critical Mass. Very hush-hush, white smoke sort of deal.

This is the same America that elected George W. Bush..TWICE. Don't underestimate the ignorance of most Americans.

1. Point of correction, George Bush was only elected once.

2. The second time, he beat John Kerry. And to be fair, it was John fucking Kerry.

Because McCain won the debate before it happened, John McCain has now chosen to suspend his campaign to focus on combating the problem of random time shifts all over the country.

It's the LHC's fault -.- If scientists would just stop monkeying with time holes, the world would be a much safer place.

I thought Professor Farnsworth did it, with his genetically engineered atomic supermen.

Part of me thinks this is a bad sign, what with gullibility.

The other me remembers that an overwhelming majority of the Nebraskan customers he worked with at the grocery store were vocally POed at McCain for backing out, and that those hearing McCain won the debate will want a transcript... Only to find the debate hasn't happened yet.

I think it's more a fault of people thinking that they HAVE to vote on their party lines. The whole "If I'm not this, then I'm that, and I hate that, so I must be this" kind of thinking.

I mean, that's of course good old fashioned ignorance, but I hope that it's more true than just plain old ignorance, if you catch my drift. :)

Yeah - the problem is that our version of democracy only works if the parties are punished for doing bad things. What stops a party with a big majority from fucking things up to their own agenda? (Recent history says 'not much') The potential that they will pay for it at the next election.

And the REAL problem is, even though a lot of people were already disenchanted with the kind of shitbomb administration Bush was running before the last election, they chose to vote for 'their party', and effectively withheld the threat of punishment.

I, personally, hold Republicans that opposed what Bush had been doing, but voted on party lines anyway to be far more culpable than any other group, for the problems of the last four years.

1. Point of correction, George Bush was only elected once.

2. The second time, he beat John Kerry. And to be fair, it was John fucking Kerry.

I'm sorry. America decided to have Bush as president for two terms.

Because McCain won the debate before it happened, John McCain has now chosen to suspend his campaign to focus on combating the problem of random time shifts all over the country.

No, those are eddies in the space-time continuum.


...

Excuse me while I retrieve my couch from Lord's cricket grounds. I assume we can resume the debate that McCain has already won at a later date, no?

John McCain's camp has released an ad claiming victory in Friday's debate. Yes, that debate. Yes, that debate. Yes. THAT debate.



So not only is McCain claiming victory in the debate, but they either forged a quote by his campaign manager, or the manager felt sufficiently disconnected from ethics, to speak about a debate that has not happened yet

Source (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/mccain-camp-releases-ad-claiming-debate-victory/)

Now, I don't mind them prepping an ad, it's good to have some template ready. I know the eve befor emost presidential elections, most newspapers already have template front pages ready for whomever wins. And this one, it seems, accidentally got released.

But to include a quote, to actually make a comment about a debate, to be used in an add...that's...highly unethical in my opinion. So, thoughts?

He should have done this in Spanish to avoid anyone uncovering this hideous breach of ethics. Have we learned nothing from the Democrats?

He should have done this in Spanish to avoid anyone uncovering this hideous breach of ethics. Have we learned nothing from the Democrats?

You going to explain or defend this at all, or are you just making shit up?

I thought Professor Farnsworth did it, with his genetically engineered atomic supermen.

They're the ones that run the LHC. They're just cleverly disguised as physicists.

<<

Yeah - the problem is that our version of democracy only works if the parties are punished for doing bad things. What stops a party with a big majority from fucking things up to their own agenda? (Recent history says 'not much') The potential that they will pay for it at the next election.

And the REAL problem is, even though a lot of people were already disenchanted with the kind of shitbomb administration Bush was running before the last election, they chose to vote for 'their party', and effectively withheld the threat of punishment.

I, personally, hold Republicans that opposed what Bush had been doing, but voted on party lines anyway to be far more culpable than any other group, for the problems of the last four years.

You know, I would take issue with voters taking the blame for electing Bush for a second term, but Locke does say that the responsibility for an effective government lies with the people, so I must say that this is true.

Barring that, I feel that no one other than Bush should face the consequences of his actions, but it wouldn't be government if the few didn't speak for the many.

Seems to me these debates, stifled as they are, usually have a clear winner. I mean, Bush NEVER won one debate against Gore or Kerry.....yet he is our president still. Is it just me OR is the voting public incapable of realizing who won and then voting accordingly?

John McCain will look ridiculous in presentation next to Barack Obama. Maybe McCain will result to his usual attacks, like in all the ads, and end up looking bitter.

You going to explain or defend this at all, or are you just making shit up?

Spanish is an ethics-free language. Didn't you ever read the ingredients? Actually, you don't even have to. It's on the front of the package.

He should have done this in Spanish to avoid anyone uncovering this hideous breach of ethics. Have we learned nothing from the Democrats?

Not really a defence.

Also - I'm under the impression that Obama wasn't actually the first candidate in this election (give you a clue, of the TWO candidates) to push questionable material through in a Spanish-only ad. Don't suppose you'd care to defend that, either, while you're nimbly avoiding dealing with this issue?

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sparring_in_spanish.html

Seems to me these debates, stifled as they are, usually have a clear winner. I mean, Bush NEVER won one debate against Gore or Kerry.....yet he is our president still. Is it just me OR is the voting public incapable of realizing who won and then voting accordingly?

John McCain will look ridiculous in presentation next to Barack Obama. Maybe McCain will result to his usual attacks, like in all the ads, and end up looking bitter.

If you won the presidency, it doesn't matter if you lost the debates because, technically, you won them. Debates aren't really meant to discuss issues but to sway undecided voters to one side or the other. So, really, it doesn't matter if you debated better - if you lost the election, you lost the debates.


EDIT: A better explanation is "It doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong. What matters is others think you are right."

1. Point of correction, George Bush was only elected once.
I have my doubts as to whether he won the election even once. And I think McCain can "win" the same way Dubya "won".

I have my doubts as to whether he won the election even once. And I think McCain can "win" the same way Dubya "won".

then the question would be weather Obama would fight it out or concede like a wimp.

I have my doubts as to whether he won the election even once. And I think McCain can "win" the same way Dubya "won".

Agreed, glad you refreshed our memories of the stolen election. And you are correct, my fear is McCain will pull the same stunt....someway or another.

Perhaps I was too subtle.

I work at a grocery store, loading bags and carting out groceries. I hear the general opinion of people coming through. I live in Nebraska, easily one of the Reddest states in the country.

Everyone was pissed off at McCain for dropping out. Even though he's gotten back in, they'll remember his cowardice. As one of the customers with a Bush '04 bumper sticker put it: "A true soldier would stand his ground, y'know?"

You know, I would take issue with voters taking the blame for electing Bush for a second term, but Locke does say that the responsibility for an effective government lies with the people, so I must say that this is true.

Barring that, I feel that no one other than Bush should face the consequences of his actions, but it wouldn't be government if the few didn't speak for the many.

Well, Bush is largely a figurehead - his abuses of power are simply an extension of his party's abuses. Yes, he's culpable. And his party is culpable. And those who enabled his abuses are culpable.

But, at heart - it is our fault as an electorate, that a regime has been able to bluster through with a sense of immunity. No President should EVER feel safe, when attacking constitutional rights. No party should EVER feel they can act with impunity, when subverting the needs of the nation for political gain.

You said you considered voting Independent as a punishment for the sins of the current regime. I say 'hat's off to you'. Democracy demands it of you.


And those that argue McCain is a 'maverick', and is breaking the mould... this 'maverick' was chosen by the same party that chose Bush to represent them... and the GOP have already declared their intent to call him to heel. Voting for the same party with a slightly cosmetically different titular head, is not change. And it won't satisfy the democratic 'need' to hold the party accountable.

Agreed, glad you refreshed our memories of the stolen election. And you are correct, my fear is McCain will pull the same stunt....someway or another.

I'm sure Bush had a reason for vetoing the paper trails for ellectronic voting machines.

then the question would be weather Obama would fight it out or concede like a wimp.

Somehow I blamed Gore for conceding at first, but I sometimes wonder if "threats" aren't made and things would be bad for him and his if he hadn't.

And those that argue McCain is a 'maverick', and is breaking the mould... this 'maverick' was chosen by the same party that chose Bush to represent them... and the GOP have already declared their intent to call him to heel. Voting for the same party with a slightly cosmetically different titular head, is not change. And it won't satisfy the democratic 'need' to hold the party accountable.

To be honest, he *was* a maverick in the Republican community, in that he was moderate enough to convince a lot of Republicans that he wasn't conservative enough.

Ergo, that's why Palin was chosen as his VP - she was no name to the point where Republicans felt that she wouldn't upstage McCain in Republican circles, as far outside of the beltway as possible, and a staunch Conservative.

Of course, that's probably the same percentage of the voters who beleive Obama is a Muslim.

On a side note: it was Democrats who floated that. Hillary to be exact. It is amazing that so many here are shocked, shocked!, at the tactics of the GOP when you Obama fans have no issue with attacks on canidate's children, their age, alluding to mental illnesses, or floating the prospect that someone was treated very nicely while they were a POW.

Nope, releasing a debate victory announcement is the absolute bottom of the barrel! How offensive!

Sorry to disrupt the echoes. Enjoy.

Perhaps I was too subtle.

I work at a grocery store, loading bags and carting out groceries. I hear the general opinion of people coming through. I live in Nebraska, easily one of the Reddest states in the country.

Everyone was pissed off at McCain for dropping out. Even though he's gotten back in, they'll remember his cowardice. As one of the customers with a Bush '04 bumper sticker put it: "A true soldier would stand his ground, y'know?"

Glad to see the last ditch effort failed.

Now, I suppose its possible McCain just overreacted to the crisis, but I doubt it. The timing really does make this look like a calculated attempt to get a breather when he's loosing, while making his opponent look bad for campainging. When in fact, the campaign's supposed to be about fixing the crisis.

Really, this reminds me a lot of the final stages of the Clinton campaign, when they were arguing that only votes for Clinton, not Obama should be counted. It was essentially trying to give Clinton the victory by single party show election, a desperation tactic for a campaign that had very little left.

This, I think, was McCain's undemocratic desperation tactic: backing out, perhaps implying that we should suspend the Democratic process because of a time of crisis. And as with Clinton, it leaves him appearing dirty and desperated. Of course McCain backed down quickly. Clinton stuck to her guns right to the end.

Somehow I blamed Gore for conceding at first, but I sometimes wonder if "threats" aren't made and things would be bad for him and his if he hadn't.

Tinfoil Hats: Official head gear of the Democrat party.

Agreed, glad you refreshed our memories of the stolen election.

Now, now... implying theft is not only harsh, it's also not entirely true. That election was appropriated. Any spin doctor worth his or her salt can tell you that's a significantly different thing.

It sickens me that he's apparently willing to use an economic crisis to duck out when he's loosing (of course he can also attack Barrack for "carring more about winning an election than helping his country").

Of course, nobly suspending his campaing in a time of crisis has not stopped McCain from running attack adds, I see.

This is a tough sell for people that take your stance because McCain has a history of being able to take the easy or politically expedient road but refusing to do so when he thought it wasn't the right thing to do. Obviously, his decision to stay in the POW prison when he had a chance to leave early is evidence of that. But he fought President Reagan's stationing of the marines in Beirut. He was right about that. He went against the Republican power structure to get McCain-Feingold passed. I disagree with McCain on that one. He was one of the first, if not the first high profile politician to call for the surge in Iraq which by all accounts has been an amazing success.

In short, it wouldn't be out of his nature to say "screw the campaign" if he thought he would be an asset to getting a bill passed during the economic crisis.

Stolen? No. I think the American public is stupid enough to believe what McCain is the messiah of this nation. You don't know how many people I hear using all the talking points that he has. The very idea that anyone in this country could believe any of what he says has caused me to realize that Americans are not the smartest of people.

I don't have to believe John McCain to vote for him. I trust Obama and we can't afford him. He wants a Universal Healthcare system. He wants to provide $4,000 a year to every high school graduate that wants to go to college. He wants to invest 15 billion a year in research for renewable, clean energies. I trust Obama that he wants to severly limit the nuclear energy that this country produces. I trust Obama that he wants to severly limit the offshore drilling the United States participates in while other countries drill just a few more miles out in International waters. That much I agree with. I also agree with him when he says he will raise the capital gains tax possibly up to 27%. That's basically doubling it seeing as how it is at 15% right now.

You want to destroy the fragile economy in the United States? Double the capital gains tax. The stock market is one of the few things keeping the economy afloat. Doubling the capital gains will severely cripple the market because people will pull their money out. I know I will. I don't believe Social Security is going to be around when I retire. Because of this, I'm investing for my retirement in different ways. Stocks is one of those ways. If Obama is going to tax almost 30% of my retirement that I may or may not make in the market, the gamble to invest just became significantly higher.

If Obama really understood the middle class, he would understand that millions in the middle class are investing in their retirement in exactly the same way I am. CEO bigwigs aren't the only people taking advantage of Wall Street in today's economy.

Those aren't talking points as far as I know. Nobody has been talking about Obama's tax increase on the capital gains. I just keep hearing "95% of Americans will get a tax cut" under Obama's plan. That's pretty tough because some 40% of Americans don't even pay taxes. I also think he's refering to just one of the dozens of ways the federal government has found ways to nickel and dime us over the past 200 years of our nation's existence. While federal income taxes may indeed go down for the vast majority of tax payers, I would venture to say that nearly 100% of all other taxable income would be raised, some of it significantly.

Really? Come on, weather Dem or Rep both sides have these ads prepared ahead of time. Win or lose. Sounds more like an error in the ad department. Besides you can't tell me Obama doesn't have a similar ad waiting for after the debate

This is a tough sell for people that take your stance because McCain has a history of being able to take the easy or politically expedient road but refusing to do so when he thought it wasn't the right thing to do. Obviously, his decision to stay in the POW prison when he had a chance to leave early is evidence of that. But he fought President Reagan's stationing of the marines in Beirut. He was right about that. He went against the Republican power structure to get McCain-Feingold passed. I disagree with McCain on that one. He was one of the first, if not the first high profile politician to call for the surge in Iraq which by all accounts has been an amazing success.

In short, it wouldn't be out of his nature to say "screw the campaign" if he thought he would be an asset to getting a bill passed during the economic crisis.



I don't have to believe John McCain to vote for him. I trust Obama and we can't afford him. He wants a Universal Healthcare system. He wants to provide $4,000 a year to every high school graduate that wants to go to college. He wants to invest 15 billion a year in research for renewable, clean energies. I trust Obama that he wants to severly limit the nuclear energy that this country produces. I trust Obama that he wants to severly limit the offshore drilling the United States participates in while other countries drill just a few more miles out in International waters. That much I agree with. I also agree with him when he says he will raise the capital gains tax possibly up to 27%. That's basically doubling it seeing as how it is at 15% right now.

You want to destroy the fragile economy in the United States? Double the capital gains tax. The stock market is one of the few things keeping the economy afloat. Doubling the capital gains will severely cripple the market because people will pull their money out. I know I will. I don't believe Social Security is going to be around when I retire. Because of this, I'm investing for my retirement in different ways. Stocks is one of those ways. If Obama is going to tax almost 30% of my retirement that I may or may not make in the market, the gamble to invest just became significantly higher.

If Obama really understood the middle class, he would understand that millions in the middle class are investing in their retirement in exactly the same way I am. CEO bigwigs aren't the only people taking advantage of Wall Street in today's economy.

Those aren't talking points as far as I know. Nobody has been talking about Obama's tax increase on the capital gains. I just keep hearing "95% of Americans will get a tax cut" under Obama's plan. That's pretty tough because some 40% of Americans don't even pay taxes. I also think he's refering to just one of the dozens of ways the federal government has found ways to nickel and dime us over the past 200 years of our nation's existence. While federal income taxes may indeed go down for the vast majority of tax payers, I would venture to say that nearly 100% of all other taxable income would be raised, some of it significantly.

You're cute.

On a side note: it was Democrats who floated that. Hillary to be exact. It is amazing that so many here are shocked, shocked!, at the tactics of the GOP when you Obama fans have no issue with attacks on canidate's children, their age, alluding to mental illnesses, or floating the prospect that someone was treated very nicely while they were a POW.

Nope, releasing a debate victory announcement is the absolute bottom of the barrel! How offensive!

Sorry to disrupt the echoes. Enjoy.

No substance... no evidence. Just a lot of attacking...

Dude! You are the echoes!

Really? Come on, weather Dem or Rep both sides have these ads prepared ahead of time. Win or lose. Sounds more like an error in the ad department. Besides you can't tell me Obama doesn't have a similar ad waiting for after the debate

That's possible, but when his campaign manager actually announces it...

This entire thing reminds me of the scene in Citizen Kane when he's running for governor. His newspaper has two headlines prepared: KANE WINS IN LANDSLIDE and FRAUD AT THE POLLS. I guess the McCain campaign released the WINS IN LANDSLIDE headline.

He wants to invest 15 billion a year in research for renewable, clean energies.

That's peanuts compared to the 700 billion dollars the current US administration wants to spend in order to keep certain malfunctioning financial institutes alive. The development of renewable sources of non-polluting energy may actually produce nice profits in the long run. Think of it as an investment.

Really? Come on, weather Dem or Rep both sides have these ads prepared ahead of time. Win or lose. Sounds more like an error in the ad department. Besides you can't tell me Obama doesn't have a similar ad waiting for after the debate

The difference, perhaps - would be releasing this campaign material, while still (theoretically) abstaining from participating. Indeed, declaring you'd won a debate you were - at that point - still claiming you were not even going to take part in.

Somehow I blamed Gore for conceding at first, but I sometimes wonder if "threats" aren't made and things would be bad for him and his if he hadn't.Well, I've been accused of being one of the more "tin-foiled" posters on this subject, but no: I think Gore genuinely believed that it would be better for the stability of our system. Gore personally did some arm-twisting to make sure no Democratic Senators joined with the Democratic Representatives who wanted to contest the Florida electoral votes (the counting of the electoral votes is in a joint session of Congress, and the rules are that any motion for a contest has to be sponsored by at least one from each branch; the chair of the joint session is the President of the Senate, that is, the outgoing Vice-President, so Gore himself was in charge of certifying the final electoral-vote count, an irony last seen in 1960 when Nixon certified Kennedy the winner).

On a side note: it was Democrats who floated that. Hillary to be exact.

No, it wasnt. The Republicans in IL were saying he was a Muslim when he ran for the Fed. Senate, and probably even before that.

On a side note: it was Democrats who floated that. Hillary to be exact. It is amazing that so many here are shocked, shocked!, at the tactics of the GOP when you Obama fans have no issue with attacks on canidate's children, their age, alluding to mental illnesses, or floating the prospect that someone was treated very nicely while they were a POW.

Nope, releasing a debate victory announcement is the absolute bottom of the barrel! How offensive!

Sorry to disrupt the echoes. Enjoy.

Um, **** you. Before I respond to anything else, allow me to register my deep disgust at the "you Obama fans" bit, wherin you lump a huge and diverse group of people togeather and practically engage in libel against that entire group by saying that we all, collectively, are fine with the use of the dirty attacks you mentioned. On the other hand, you conservatives all support the murder of abortion doctors and gays(I'm sure the sarcasm flew right over your head).

If you read my last post, you'll see that I am fully aware of the dirty tactics employed by Clinton. I'm not sure weather the Muslim bit emerged first from Clinton supporters or supporters of the GOP, but I beleive the Republicans have fanned the flames by talking about "Obama's links to terrorists", and suggesting he's against protecting Israel.

As for unscrupulous attacks against a candadite's children, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't recall any attacks against McCain's kids *(does he even have any), certainly not by the actual Obama campaing. If your talking about Chelsee Clinton in the primaries, I don't know that Obama's campaing ever attacked her, but in any case, she was an adault who chose to actively campaing for her mother, and thus fair game.

McCain's age is fair game, because it has a potential bearing on his abillity to do the job(and also weather we'll end up with President Palin instead). As far as alluding to mental illness, I'd say that not knowing where Spain is could be considered a fairly good sign of senillity setting in. On the other hand, Obama got the number of states wrong, so I'll let it go in the knowledge that people get tired on the campaing trail, and that people make mistakes when they are tired.

I can't say I've ever heard it suggested that McCain was well treated as a POW, and if anyone has said that, they are a dumb ass. I can also garuntee that their comments were not sanctioned by the Obama campaing, as you seem perhaps to be trying to imply.

Finally, announcing victory in a debate is no where near the bottom of the barral, in fact its quite legitimate under certain circumstances. My problem is with the fact that he announced it before the debate occured, but such a subtle distinction appears to have escaped you.

I haven't got a television; does anyone know where I can find a transcript of the debate?
itll be shown online at barackobama.com or you can probably find a transcript tomorrow on cnn.com

I'm not sure weather the Muslim bit emerged first from Clinton supporters

It wasnt.

It wasnt.

Thought so.

Perhaps I was too subtle.

I work at a grocery store, loading bags and carting out groceries. I hear the general opinion of people coming through. I live in Nebraska, easily one of the Reddest states in the country.

Everyone was pissed off at McCain for dropping out. Even though he's gotten back in, they'll remember his cowardice. As one of the customers with a Bush '04 bumper sticker put it: "A true soldier would stand his ground, y'know?"
its good to hear that the general public isnt as stupid as the mccain camp think they are.

Tinfoil Hats: Official head gear of the Democrat party.

Well, now that's good, 'cause being a member of the Democratic Party, I know I won't need one.

Besides you can't tell me Obama doesn't have a similar ad waiting for after the debate

The difference is, nobody's running it yet.

Um...

Don't get bogged down in the extraneous conflict, my friend. Keep it mellow, stay on topic, and you'll come out a much happier bunny for it.

Yes, Smiley was flamebaiting. No, you shouldn't satisfy that craving for attention.

its good to hear that the general public isnt as stupid as the mccain camp think they are.

Just because they don't like him doesn't mean they won't vote for him. The other guy is a ****** afterall.

No, those are eddies in the space-time continuum.


...

Excuse me while I retrieve my couch from Lord's cricket grounds. I assume we can resume the debate that McCain has already won at a later date, no?

We did, a week ago. Remember, we go through that in detail next month?

McCain's fuck ups are truly beautiful

Just because they don't like him doesn't mean they won't vote for him. The other guy is a ****** afterall.

This is, literally, (I am sad to admit it) almost exactly, verbatim, my mother-in-laws position.

Thought so.

Honostly, they were saying it around here when he ran for the Senate. After he won, some rightwing talking heads started the rumor that he was sworn in on a Quran.

This is, literally, (I am sad to admit it) almost exactly, verbatim, my mother-in-laws position.

Yeah it's pretty much my mother's position too. Which is ironic because I know she has black friends. Oh well. Guess chatting with the ladies is different than voting for one.

Don't get bogged down in the extraneous conflict, my friend. Keep it mellow, stay on topic, and you'll come out a much happier bunny for it.

Yes, Smiley was flamebaiting. No, you shouldn't satisfy that craving for attention.

Especially because debating with TSF is an utter waste of ones time and energy, because he doesnt back up anything he says.

Well, now that's good, 'cause being a member of the Democratic Party, I know I won't need one.



The difference is, nobody's running it yet.

Oh, trust me, getting people to call the blue-donkey party by its correct name is a lost cause.

We did, a week ago. Remember, we go through that in detail next month?

Oh, good.

I hope we can make it back to the Bicentennial party before we end up at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. I mean, who really wants to go see some gnab gib when there are loads of drunk women to score? :D

This is a tough sell for people that take your stance because McCain has a history of being able to take the easy or politically expedient road but refusing to do so when he thought it wasn't the right thing to do. Obviously, his decision to stay in the POW prison when he had a chance to leave early is evidence of that. But he fought President Reagan's stationing of the marines in Beirut. He was right about that. He went against the Republican power structure to get McCain-Feingold passed. I disagree with McCain on that one. He was one of the first, if not the first high profile politician to call for the surge in Iraq which by all accounts has been an amazing success.

In short, it wouldn't be out of his nature to say "screw the campaign" if he thought he would be an asset to getting a bill passed during the economic crisis.

I'm not afraid to acknowledge McCain's acheivements. I would question weather the recent success in Iraq was due more to the surge or to a combination of bribes, diplomacy, and the so called "Sunni awakening", but that's beside the point. The point is that we have to judge people on who they are now, not who they were ten years ago. McCain's dishonesty in this campaign has been to much for even Carl Rove to stomach apparently. I think what ever integrity McCain had died when he finally reallized it wasn't winning him any elections.


I don't have to believe John McCain to vote for him. I trust Obama and we can't afford him. He wants a Universal Healthcare system. He wants to provide $4,000 a year to every high school graduate that wants to go to college. He wants to invest 15 billion a year in research for renewable, clean energies. I trust Obama that he wants to severly limit the nuclear energy that this country produces. I trust Obama that he wants to severly limit the offshore drilling the United States participates in while other countries drill just a few more miles out in International waters. That much I agree with. I also agree with him when he says he will raise the capital gains tax possibly up to 27%. That's basically doubling it seeing as how it is at 15% right now.

Frankly I doubt either candadite will be able to afford what their promising. What makes you think McCain's tax cuts are any more affordable? Or keeping troops in Iraq? At least Obama won't put the Supreme
Court firmly in the hands of the Christian Right for 20 years. And if, God forbid, he dies, at least we won't end up with a theocrat in the White House.

Finally, on the topic of nuclear power, I don't beleive that Obama opposes it. Its just a politically touchy subject, and McCain was going to lose the environmentalist vote anyway. If nothing else, you can take comfort in the fact that the nuclear industry has supported Obama, and politicians tend to remember who their friends are.

No substance... no evidence. Just a lot of attacking...

Not unlike every other post here. Score a win dude!

Not unlike every other post here. Score a win dude!

At least we're not telling blatant misinformation.

Especially because debating with TSF is an utter waste of ones time and energy, because he doesnt back up anything he says.

Can you source that? Are those sources peer-reviewed? Can I get five more sources? I found one out of the five that has been discredited by The Nation so I am full of win!

An just to correct you, no one has ever engaged me in an actual debate on this forum. Arguments galore but no debate. I learned long ago that sources mean nothing to people of such overwhelming prejudice.

Can you source that? Are those sources peer-reviewed? Can I get five more sources? I found one out of the five that has been discredited by The Nation so I am full of win!

An just to correct you, no one has ever engaged me in an actual debate on this forum. Arguments galore but no debate. I learned long ago that sources mean nothing to people of such overwhelming prejudice.

You're silly. I like that.

You're silly. I like that.

I find it amusing I had to source his statement about Obama's Spanish ad. Though since that source also pointed out McCain was lying too it was summarily ignored.

Yes, Smiley was flamebaiting. No, you shouldn't satisfy that craving for attention.

If nothing else I have learned in my time here is that the majority gets to be rude, crass, and combative while those who have minority views are flamebaiting.

If nothing else I have learned in my time here is that the majority gets to be rude, crass, and combative while those who have minority views are flamebaiting.

Do have a whole stand-up routine or are you just winging it? Either way, you are damn funny.

I find it amusing I had to source his statement about Obama's Spanish ad. Though since that source also pointed out McCain was lying too it was summarily ignored.

Obama's ad basically said that McCain and Rush Limbaugh were hand in hand in putting down Mexicans. Your source must have been the Obama website since it doesn't take much searching to see that Rush was completely against, and not too flattering to, McCain.

Can you honestly say that McCain didn't fight for the supposed "rights" of illegal aliens? He took a public beating over it.

Do have a whole stand-up routine or are you just winging it? Either way, you are damn funny.

Neesika and H2 are starting a fan club. Ask them if you can join.

Can you honestly say that McCain didn't fight for the supposed "rights" of illegal aliens? He took a public beating over it.

Yup, right up until it appeared it was costing him votes. Then he flip-flopped.

What a brave maverick!

Yup, right up until it appeared it was costing him votes. Then he flip-flopped.

What a brave maverick!

John McCain, bravely going out against party lines. At least until...you know...the party tells him to stop.

Not unlike every other post here. Score a win dude!

Actually, even in the last few debates I've been getting involved in, I've presented some kind of source, more often than not - or utilised a source someone else had already provided.

So... I think you're trying to excuse your own poor behaviour, rather than actually settling at the level of the debate.

Can you source that? Are those sources peer-reviewed? Can I get five more sources? I found one out of the five that has been discredited by The Nation so I am full of win!

An just to correct you, no one has ever engaged me in an actual debate on this forum. Arguments galore but no debate. I learned long ago that sources mean nothing to people of such overwhelming prejudice.

Perhaps you've been engaged in debate, but have failed to engage?

John McCain, bravely going out against party lines. At least until...you know...the party tells him to stop.

Then he suspends his campaign :wink:

Don't get bogged down in the extraneous conflict, my friend. Keep it mellow, stay on topic, and you'll come out a much happier bunny for it.

Yes, Smiley was flamebaiting. No, you shouldn't satisfy that craving for attention.

Fair point. But God that kind of idiocy is annoying.

Then he suspends his campaign :wink:

no no, he suspends his campaign to deal with the emergency situation. Then takes absolutely no part in negotiating the tentative deal. Then when the tentative deal falls apart, decides he’s done enough and can resume the campaign.

If nothing else I have learned in my time here is that the majority gets to be rude, crass, and combative while those who have minority views are flamebaiting.

No, those who post comments like: "Tinfoil Hats: Official head gear of the Democrat party" and "you Obama fans have no issue with attacks on canidate's children, their age, alluding to mental illnesses..." (etc.) are flamebaiting.

But only because... well, they are flamebaiting.

*plays minstrel*

The Brave Sir John, Sir John McCain.
He fought so hard in sun and rain.
He fought and lost and got captured.
Don't question him or you're a turd.

The brave Sir John, cannot debate.
He said he'd rather stay up late
Faking an economic plan
he ran and ran and ran and ran....

Brave brave brave brave Sir John McCain

:p

No, those who post comments like: "Tinfoil Hats: Official head gear of the Democrat party" and "you Obama fans have no issue with attacks on canidate's children, their age, alluding to mental illnesses..." (etc.) are flamebaiting.

But only because... well, they are flamebaiting.

Let him rant. His day, the day of the GOP's dominance over American politics, are coming to an end. You know what I see when Conservatives troll flame and lie? I see desperation. They know they're beat and their helpless to stop it.

*plays minstrel*

The Brave Sir John, Sir John McCain.
He fought so hard in sun and rain.
He fought and lost and got captured.
Don't question him or you're a turd.

The brave Sir John, cannot debate.
He said he'd rather stay up late
Faking an economic plan
he ran and ran and ran and ran....

Brave brave brave brave Sir John McCain

:p


damn, I shoulda just edited the Holy Grail lyrics instead


Brave Sir McCain ran away,
Bravely ran away, away.
When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir McCain turned about
And gallantly, he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir McCain.

If nothing else I have learned in my time here is that the majority gets to be rude, crass, and combative while those who have minority views are flamebaiting.

A minority view with minor evidence. ;)

Let him rant. His day, the day of the GOP's dominance over American politics, are coming to an end. You know what I see when Conservatives troll flame and lie? I see desperation. They know they're beat and their helpless to stop it.

Things do seem desperate for them these days. The economy started to drag Republican polling numbers down (McCain didn't help with his "the economy is strong" comment and subsequent repositioning statements); skipping ahead, Palin is absolutely embarrassing during her interview with Couric; McCain "suspends" his campaign, but the move seems to backfire and he's forced to reverse course a few days later; meanwhile, McCain is forced to cancel an appearance on Letterman so that he can squeeze in an interview with Couric himself, in the hopes that he can do some damage control from Palin's interview (this is only an issue in the sense that Dave calls him on his sense of "urgency" to get back to Washington...22 hours later, which is embarrassing); liberals and democrats alike pan Palin's interview performance, which is making headlines; and finally, this video is released prematurely.

I'm sure I'm forgetting something in there as well, but it just feels like they're coming apart at the seams over there. I'm sure they're feeling quite desperate, actually. McCain needs some good press, and fast. I wonder if the debate will help...

An just to correct you, no one has ever engaged me in an actual debate on this forum. Arguments galore but no debate. I learned long ago that sources mean nothing to people of such overwhelming prejudice.

Because of your inability to discuss anything, I dont think you know enough about debating to be able to make such a judgement.


I dont debate you because Ive tried and you didnt back anything up.


Why dont you just go back to pretending that the Republicans had nothing to do with the claim Obama's a Muslim and that mean Hillary started it. That was funny.

When is the debate?

When is the debate?
Earlier today / tomorrow, depending on alignment of planets and such.

McCain "suspends" his campaign, but the move seems to backfire and he's forced to reverse course a few days later;

Although, with all the nonsense flying about in the McCain camp, these events seem like they happen over a longer period of time, John McCain didn't suspend his campaign until yesterday. The announcement was wednesday night. He didn't even make it two full days. The hope was, of course, that if he could appear strong on the economy, his poll numbers would go up, but Obama handled it masterfully, calling him out, basically saying "I'm on the Senate floor too, I'm at the White House too, I'm going to these meetings too, but I'm still prepared for Friday. You can't handle two things at once and you think you can deserve to be president?"

Now with this Palin mess you have top republicans stating OUT LOUD that she's unsuitable and should step back. When in the history has this happened? When have we seen top people in a political party attacking THEIR OWN TICKET a month before an election?

GOP strategists are calling McCain's gambit foolish, top people are asking Palin to step down after her disasterous interview in which Katie "let me show you my colon!" Curic evicerated her.

The wheels are coming off the bus here, and McCain is coming across and dillusional and out of touch.

When is the debate?

C-SPAN (http://www.c-span.org/), tool of the liberal media elites, insists it's at 9 PM Eastern tonight. John McCain, too much of a maverick to follow the liberal lie of so-called "linear" time, has already won the debate, so it's not worth watching.

When is the debate?

This evening sometime (8pm or 9pm EST, I think).

Meanwhile, Obama has closed the gap in Ohio to a dead tie, narrowed McCain's lead in Florida to 1 point (well within the margin of error), opened up a 3 point gap in Colorado, and is now leading by FIVE points in Virginia. Fucking VIRGINIA

McCain "suspends" his campaign, but the move seems to backfire and he's forced to reverse course a few days later; meanwhile, McCain is forced to cancel an appearance on Letterman so that he can squeeze in an interview with Couric himself, in the hopes that he can do some damage control from Palin's interview (this is only an issue in the sense that Dave calls him on his sense of "urgency" to get back to Washington...22 hours later, which is embarrassing);

I know the Letterman thing seems trivial, but - it's not really.

McCain made a campaign choice. He chose to (claim he would) suspend his campaign.

He then, clearly and visibly, continued campaigning... making his own claim a lie, right there, in the open.

Letterman isn't a trivial detail, there - he's evidence that McCain is a liar.

no no, he suspends his campaign to deal with the emergency situation. Then takes absolutely no part in negotiating the tentative deal. Then when the tentative deal falls apart, decides he’s done enough and can resume the campaign.

Well, it was actually (technically) the third time he suspended his campaign this year, so I get confused :tongue:

This evening sometime (8pm or 9pm EST, I think).
Time is for liberals.

I'm not afraid to acknowledge McCain's acheivements. I would question weather the recent success in Iraq was due more to the surge or to a combination of bribes, diplomacy, and the so called "Sunni awakening", but that's beside the point. The point is that we have to judge people on who they are now, not who they were ten years ago. McCain's dishonesty in this campaign has been to much for even Carl Rove to stomach apparently. I think what ever integrity McCain had died when he finally reallized it wasn't winning him any elections.

I think we have to judge the candidates on who they are now AND who they were 10 years ago. Anyone can blow smoke for 2 years to win an election. But to discount the surge as successful is simply being disagreeable because you don't want to give the "other side" any credit. The surge has worked. Most Democrats in Washington will at least acknowledge that.


Frankly I doubt either candadite will be able to afford what their promising. What makes you think McCain's tax cuts are any more affordable? Or keeping troops in Iraq?

First, I don't put a price tag on security. Whether we should have gone into Iraq or not is irrelevant at this point because are there now. The question is where do we go from here. If we leave before that country is stable and Iranian influences siege control of large portion of Iraq, we will have done ourselves a great disservice.

But at least John McCain's theory of cut taxes and cut spending work together. Obama wants to act as if he's going to lower taxes and send spending through the roof. Bringing home the troops from Iraq won't even put a dent in his socialized healthcare system's pricetag- especially since Obama has decided to get tough on the Taliban and invade Pakistan all of a sudden.

At least Obama won't put the Supreme Court firmly in the hands of the Christian Right for 20 years. And if, God forbid, he dies, at least we won't end up with a theocrat in the White House.

I would rather have the court in control of the Christian Right for 20 years rather than a court that will stifle our second amendment rights. I'm a firm believer that without the 2nd amendment, the American people have no true way to protect their first.

Finally, on the topic of nuclear power, I don't beleive that Obama opposes it. Its just a politically touchy subject, and McCain was going to lose the environmentalist vote anyway. If nothing else, you can take comfort in the fact that the nuclear industry has supported Obama, and politicians tend to remember who their friends are.

Obama basically opposes free-market energy. He wants the government to have a very tight reign on all forms of energy including American oil, American coal, American nuclear, etc. This ideology severely limits the supply of energy while they demand continues to grow. When the supply doesn't keep up with demand, prices rise faster than rate of inflation.

Meanwhile hundreds of billions of dollars are being shipped overseas to Middle Eastern countries that probably don't have our best interest at heart. If Obama wants to create new American jobs that can't be outsourced, let's start building American nuclear plants around this country. Let's allow companies to drill offshore with legislation that mandates they hire American citizens to work the rigs. Let's build more oil refineries and employ Americans to refine the crude.

There are things this congress could do right now to get our economy steamrolling, but the politics are getting in the way. And it's Obama's politics.

lol @ puppets

It is just stupid. I"m sorry, but it doesn't matter what happens in the debate, I assure you that both sides will claim to have won it, "hands down." And for days on end people will argue here and on TV and Radio why the other side is full of shit for claiming to have won. I just see this as a non-starter and assign it to the "idiot campaign crap" pile.

People saying McCain is evil, unethical, a liar, etc. because the ad saying he won is already out, get a grip, I assure you Obama has something like it already prepared as well, it just hasn't been released yet. Early release of the anticipated claim is irrelevant. If you are dumb enough to buy into the ad don't watch the debate cause you think it is already over or a waste of time, you are dumb enough you don't deserve the right to vote.

I know the Letterman thing seems trivial, but - it's not really.

McCain made a campaign choice. He chose to (claim he would) suspend his campaign.

He then, clearly and visibly, continued campaigning... making his own claim a lie, right there, in the open.

Letterman isn't a trivial detail, there - he's evidence that McCain is a liar.

I wouldn't disagree. I saw it as a lie at the time, as well. I downplayed the importance of it only in the sense that it might not have registered with the general public as an outright lie on his part. It certainly did with me. But with so much else going on, I'm not sure how many people are really aware of this. I know I am, but I am immersed in the news on a fairly constant basis.

So I agree, but am wondering out loud if a significant number of voters view it as non-trivial as well.

It is just stupid. I"m sorry, but it doesn't matter what happens in the debate, I assure you that both sides will claim to have won it, "hands down." And for days on end people will argue here and on TV and Radio why the other side is full of shit for claiming to have won. I just see this as a non-starter and assign it to the "idiot campaign crap" pile.

People saying McCain is evil, unethical, a liar, etc. because the ad saying he won is already out, get a grip, I assure you Obama has something like it already prepared as well, it just hasn't been released yet. Early release of the anticipated claim is irrelevant. If you are dumb enough to buy into the ad don't watch the debate cause you think it is already over or a waste of time, you are dumb enough you don't deserve the right to vote.

I don't think McCain is a liar because they released the ad early. I think he's a liar because he repeatedly gets caught lying.

I know, what kind of logic is that...

But to discount the surge as successful is simply being disagreeable because you don't want to give the "other side" any credit. The surge has worked. Most Democrats in Washington will at least acknowledge that.

Depends entirely on what you mean by "successful" and "worked." Does throwing more soldiers at the insurgents temporarily decrease insurgent activity? Not suprising. But that is a long way from anything like "winning" the war.

Whether we should have gone into Iraq or not is irrelevant at this point because are there now. The question is where do we go from here.

Sorry, but whether we should have gone into Iraq (and the relevant history of each candidate on that issue) is relevant to the judgment of those we are considering for the next President.

I would rather have the court in control of the Christian Right for 20 years rather than a court that will stifle our second amendment rights. I'm a firm believer that without the 2nd amendment, the American people have no true way to protect their first.

1. Um. Evidence that, if Obama is elected, the Supreme Court will "stifle our Second Amendment rights"?

2. Let's see. You are saying you would jetison the First Amendment to protect the Second Amendment because ..... the Second is necessary to protect the First. Read any Kafka (or Heller) lately?

EDIT: Long before the recent SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller, Obama had declared his belief that "the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms. He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns." (pdf (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/additional/Obama_FactSheet_Western_Sportsmen.pdf)). I could add many similar campaign quotes as links, but I don't think that is necessary.

I wouldn't disagree. I saw it as a lie at the time, as well. I downplayed the importance of it only in the sense that it might not have registered with the general public as an outright lie on his part. It certainly did with me. But with so much else going on, I'm not sure how many people are really aware of this. I know I am, but I am immersed in the news on a fairly constant basis.

So I agree, but am wondering out loud if a significant number of voters view it as non-trivial as well.

That rather depends - I've been watching quite a lot of Fox today, and they're acting like McCain was basically in Washington all the time, kicking ass and taking names to make things happen.

It's going to come down to spin, and how receptive people are to it... and whether they're going to believe the official mouthpiece, or do their own thinking.

So - a LOT of people are going to stick to the Fox version, ebcause it's what they know, and it's what they WANT to know.

Hopefully, someone who has a reasonably high profile (like Letterman), will have enough of an impact that some people who might not otherwise do so, will stop and think.

It is just stupid. I"m sorry, but it doesn't matter what happens in the debate, I assure you that both sides will claim to have won it, "hands down." And for days on end people will argue here and on TV and Radio why the other side is full of shit for claiming to have won. I just see this as a non-starter and assign it to the "idiot campaign crap" pile.

People saying McCain is evil, unethical, a liar, etc. because the ad saying he won is already out, get a grip, I assure you Obama has something like it already prepared as well, it just hasn't been released yet. Early release of the anticipated claim is irrelevant. If you are dumb enough to buy into the ad don't watch the debate cause you think it is already over or a waste of time, you are dumb enough you don't deserve the right to vote.

I look at this as another misstep of late. On it's own, it's a minor little thing. Considered alongside everything else that's gone on, it just makes McCain look slimier and more calculating than he might have appeared before the story broke, or rather, it seems to corroborate my interpretation of his previous behavior.

I don't think McCain is a liar because they released the ad early. I think he's a liar because he repeatedly gets caught lying.

I know, what kind of logic is that...Hopefully the same kind of logic that recognizes Obama is a liar as well and that both of them will pander to whomever they feel they need to in order to win.

It is just stupid. I"m sorry, but it doesn't matter what happens in the debate, I assure you that both sides will claim to have won it, "hands down." And for days on end people will argue here and on TV and Radio why the other side is full of shit for claiming to have won. I just see this as a non-starter and assign it to the "idiot campaign crap" pile.

People saying McCain is evil, unethical, a liar, etc. because the ad saying he won is already out, get a grip, I assure you Obama has something like it already prepared as well, it just hasn't been released yet. Early release of the anticipated claim is irrelevant. If you are dumb enough to buy into the ad don't watch the debate cause you think it is already over or a waste of time, you are dumb enough you don't deserve the right to vote.

I agree this isn't a big deal, but it is another turd on the shitcake that is McCain/Palin.

But to discount the surge as successful is simply being disagreeable


Not at all. Skepticism is not 'being disagreeable'.


...because you don't want to give the "other side" any credit. The surge has worked.


Or not.

Personally, it seems more likely to me, that Al Sadr putting a tight leash on his militia has been a bigger contributor. We've seen what happened when troops were built up previously (militants simply relocated to other areas than where the troop build-ups were), so I question quite how effective the surge would have been, alone.


Most Democrats in Washington will at least acknowledge that.


An appeal to authority? What a compelling argument!

Hopefully the same kind of logic that recognizes Obama is a liar as well and that both of them will pander to whomever they feel they need to in order to win.

What's wrong? Can't defend McCain so you're going to pretend the debate was about Obama?

Agreed, glad you refreshed our memories of the stolen election. And you are correct, my fear is McCain will pull the same stunt....someway or another.

Nevah forget.

I think we have to judge the candidates on who they are now AND who they were 10 years ago. Anyone can blow smoke for 2 years to win an election. But to discount the surge as successful is simply being disagreeable because you don't want to give the "other side" any credit. The surge has worked. Most Democrats in Washington will at least acknowledge that.

Isn't the willingness to sell out everything to win, even temporarilly, rather telling about a man's character.

And don't paint me as a lier who refuses to give credit to the "other side" because I acknowledge that did not work and will not work in isolation. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that their's more to winning a war than the number of boots on the ground.




First, I don't put a price tag on security. Whether we should have gone into Iraq or not is irrelevant at this point because are there now. The question is where do we go from here. If we leave before that country is stable and Iranian influences siege control of large portion of Iraq, we will have done ourselves a great disservice.

But we can't be their indefinately. That's not victory. At best, that's stalemate. And I wasn't asking about weather we should be their. I was questioning the notion that McCain's goals are more affordable than Obama's. Weather they're worth it anyway is a different point. Perhaps I feel that we also can't put a price tag on universal health care, and that we will be doing ourselves a great disservice if we allow hard working famillies to be destroyed because they had an accident or illness.

But at least John McCain's theory of cut taxes and cut spending work together. Obama wants to act as if he's going to lower taxes and send spending through the roof. Bringing home the troops from Iraq won't even put a dent in his socialized healthcare system's pricetag- especially since Obama has decided to get tough on the Taliban and invade Pakistan all of a sudden.

Saying that Obama plans to invade Pakistan is something of an exageration. Besides, I thought you didn't place a price tag on security.

At any rate, you have to ask yourself weather McCain's plan of giving massive tax cuts to the rich is wise when there's a massive debt and a war or three to fund. Obama would cut suposedly cut taxes, but he would probably raise them on the rich. Who would still be richer than everyone else. They can just afford to pay a lot more to cover the government's necissary expenses. You see, like it or not, there is a price tag on security (and everything else).

I would rather have the court in control of the Christian Right for 20 years rather than a court that will stifle our second amendment rights. I'm a firm believer that without the 2nd amendment, the American people have no true way to protect their first

Then you're either an die hard member of the Christian Right yourself, or you probably don't know much about its goals. If they take control, we may indeed need those guns to keep our other rights.

However, if violent revolution is nessisary to protect our freedoms, then its probably already too late. A lot of revolutionaries end up being just about as bad as those they overthrough. Personally, I'd rather try to keep our freedoms peacefully, rather than give all the rest of them up all in order to ensure one by which we then hope to win back the all the others in a brutal struggle. If you beleive the only way to protect your freedoms is through violence, then I'm afraid that's all you'll ever get.

Also, could you kindly provide a quote of the second amendment, bolding the part where it garuntees the right to have an number of weapons, of any type, under an circumstances, no regulations allowed? Reasonable regulations are quite acceptable.

Obama basically opposes free-market energy. He wants the government to have a very tight reign on all forms of energy including American oil, American coal, American nuclear, etc. This ideology severely limits the supply of energy while they demand continues to grow. When the supply doesn't keep up with demand, prices rise faster than rate of inflation.

Meanwhile hundreds of billions of dollars are being shipped overseas to Middle Eastern countries that probably don't have our best interest at heart. If Obama wants to create new American jobs that can't be outsourced, let's start building American nuclear plants around this country. Let's allow companies to drill offshore with legislation that mandates they hire American citizens to work the rigs. Let's build more oil refineries and employ Americans to refine the crude.

There are things this congress could do right now to get our economy steamrolling, but the politics are getting in the way. And it's Obama's politics.

Obama's actually shifted on the offshore drilling, to the annoyance of some of his supporters. But you have to think long term. Offshore drilling is a short term fix at best, and offshore drilling alone will at best postpone the energy disaster. And it will only worsen polution and the climate change problem. By moving away from oil, we kill about five birds with one stone. We don't have to employ Americans in drilling. What, do you think damns and nuclear plants build themselves?

By the way, it may suprise you to know that Obama does not oppose nuclear power, and is backed by people in the nuclear industry.

I would rather have the court in control of the Christian Right for 20 years rather than a court that will stifle our second amendment rights. I'm a firm believer that without the 2nd amendment, the American people have no true way to protect their first.
.

People who think this in 2008 are funny. It may have been true in 1788, but it isn't now. If the government really wants to take your guns, they will, second amendment or no. Back when the second amendment was drafted, the difference between the arms available to a private citizen and those that the government equipped soldiers with was very small. Now it is very large. Please, spare us, this line of argument is just silly.

People who think this in 2008 are funny. It may have been true in 1788, but it isn't now. If the government really wants to take your guns, they will, second amendment or no. Back when the second amendment was drafted, the difference between the arms available to a private citizen and those that the government equipped soldiers with was very small. Now it is very large. Please, spare us, this line of argument is just silly.

Well, weaker weapons don't nessissarily garuntee defeat. Look at the success of the Iraq insurgency. Of course, do we really want America to end up like Iraq?

Besides, their are pleanty of other flaws with his argument, both ethical and practical in nature.

People who think this in 2008 are funny. It may have been true in 1788, but it isn't now. If the government really wants to take your guns, they will, second amendment or no. Back when the second amendment was drafted, the difference between the arms available to a private citizen and those that the government equipped soldiers with was very small. Now it is very large. Please, spare us, this line of argument is just silly.

No, see, the military will help the populace. Never mind that every other totalitarian state has had the firm backing of the military before seizing complete power. The American military is superhuman and would never do anything bad ever.

Well, weaker weapons don't nessissarily garuntee defeat. Look at the success of the Iraq insurgency. Of course, do we really want America to end up like Iraq?

The insurgents who use firearms end up dead. The ones that actually have an effect use IEDs.

No, see, the military will help the populace. Never mind that every other totalitarian state has had the firm backing of the military before seizing complete power. The American military is superhuman and would never do anything bad ever.

If the millitary was on the side of the people, they wouldn't need to fight, hence, wouldn't need guns.

The insurgents who use firearms end up dead. The ones that actually have an effect use IEDs.

Yet another hole in the argument that the second amendment is nessissary for protecting our freedoms.

Unless of course one wishes to argue that that right covers the right to build or own IEDs.:)

If the millitary was on the side of the people, they wouldn't need to fight, hence, wouldn't need guns.

No, but they would need to fight because

Well, weaker weapons don't nessissarily garuntee defeat. Look at the success of the Iraq insurgency. Of course, do we really want America to end up like Iraq?

Besides, their are pleanty of other flaws with his argument, both ethical and practical in nature.

No, but I don't the US has the stuff right now to pull off an Iraqi insurgency. Plus, as you point out, while the insurgents do kill soldiers, how many of them end up dead? Do we want that?

Gun control is a minor political issue to me, I really don't care about it, I just thought his argument was very silly.

Yet another hole in the argument that the second amendment is nessissary for protecting our freedoms.

Unless of course one wishes to argue that that right covers the right to build or own IEDs.:)

As long as an IED is portable, it should be ok to own one, right?

By the way, why did you sissify the word "necessary"? I don't get it.

The debate is still happening, and we have one man to thank for that.

http://pbsman.ytmnd.com/

The debate is still happening, and we have one man to thank for that.

http://pbsman.ytmnd.com/

On that note, I'm sure that John McClane (and not John McCain) is really going to be attending that event, causing mass confusion.

XD

Meanwhile, Obama has closed the gap in Ohio to a dead tie, narrowed McCain's lead in Florida to 1 point (well within the margin of error), opened up a 3 point gap in Colorado, and is now leading by FIVE points in Virginia. Fucking VIRGINIA

Awesome isnt it?

Awesome isnt it?

Also close in Indiana and West Virginia, with a solid lead in New Mexico. It really is his to lose, isn't it?

What's wrong? Can't defend McCain so you're going to pretend the debate was about Obama?Sorry, I may be more conservative than you, that doesn't mean I support McCain. Quite honestly, any support he may have ever gotten from me disappeared years ago with passage of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act (a/k/a The Keep Free Speech Out of the Public Arena During Election Time Act).

Why are you afraid to acknowledge Obama is a liar and panderer just as McCain is?

Sorry, I may be more conservative than you, that doesn't mean I support McCain. Quite honestly, any support he may have ever gotten from me disappeared years ago with passage of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act (a/k/a The Keep Free Speech Out of the Public Arena During Election Time Act).

Why are you afraid to acknowledge Obama is a liar and panderer just as McCain is?

Obama may not be perfect, but he's a hell of a lot better than McCain.

Sorry, I may be more conservative than you, that doesn't mean I support McCain. Quite honestly, any support he may have ever gotten from me disappeared years ago with passage of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act (a/k/a The Keep Free Speech Out of the Public Arena During Election Time Act).

Why are you afraid to acknowledge Obama is a liar and panderer just as McCain is?

Because he doesnt lie and pander nearly as much as McCain. Anyone without a bias could see it.

People who think this in 2008 are funny. It may have been true in 1788, but it isn't now. If the government really wants to take your guns, they will, second amendment or no. Back when the second amendment was drafted, the difference between the arms available to a private citizen and those that the government equipped soldiers with was very small. Now it is very large. Please, spare us, this line of argument is just silly.
It was not true in 1788 because in 1788, nobody would have tolerated gutting the First Amendment for the sake of the Second or for any other reason.

Sorry, I may be more conservative than you, that doesn't mean I support McCain. Quite honestly, any support he may have ever gotten from me disappeared years ago with passage of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act (a/k/a The Keep Free Speech Out of the Public Arena During Election Time Act).

Why are you afraid to acknowledge Obama is a liar and panderer just as McCain is?
Instead of replying with words, I am spending $10,000 to hire someone to run a smear campaign against you.

Sorry, I may be more conservative than you, that doesn't mean I support McCain. Quite honestly, any support he may have ever gotten from me disappeared years ago with passage of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act (a/k/a The Keep Free Speech Out of the Public Arena During Election Time Act).


Irrelevent. Believe it or not, this debate isn't actually about you.


Why are you afraid to acknowledge Obama is a liar and panderer just as McCain is?

In what way is pointing out that you're off-topic, 'being afraid'?

Why are you afraid to acknowledge Obama is a liar and panderer just as McCain is?

Just because you may belong to the "all politicians are evil liars and panderers" school, doesn't mean we all have to join.

Does everyone -- politicians included -- sometimes say things that aren't true or are what people want to hear? Yep. Humans are fallible.

Because he doesnt lie and pander nearly as much as McCain. Anyone without a bias could see it.

Not least, of course, being the actually-on-topic point that McCain absented himself from the campaign (including this debate) to focus on blah-blah (some vague assertion that he's be somehow involved in Washington), with the specific proviso that he was not going to attend debates unless a deal had been struck...

...then, continued to campaign before he got to Washington, continued to campaign after he got to Washington, issued a campaign document before he resumed the campaign, and resumed the campaign (including the debate) without a deal having been struck.

Saying McCain is a liar is like saying Salma Hayek has a cute ass.

John McCain's camp has released an ad claiming victory in Friday's debate. Yes, that debate. Yes, that debate. Yes. THAT debate.



So not only is McCain claiming victory in the debate, but they either forged a quote by his campaign manager, or the manager felt sufficiently disconnected from ethics, to speak about a debate that has not happened yet

Source (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/mccain-camp-releases-ad-claiming-debate-victory/)

Now, I don't mind them prepping an ad, it's good to have some template ready. I know the eve befor emost presidential elections, most newspapers already have template front pages ready for whomever wins. And this one, it seems, accidentally got released.

But to include a quote, to actually make a comment about a debate, to be used in an add...that's...highly unethical in my opinion. So, thoughts?

hahahaha

omg, what dumbasses

So who will be watching the debate live here, and on what channel?

I myself plan on watching it through BBC America, since that--to me anyway--seems to be the least likely to have lots of irritatingly pedantic commentary of one idiotic sort or another.

So who will be watching the debate live here, and on what channel?

I myself plan on watching it through BBC America, since that--to me anyway--seems to be the least likely to have lots of irritatingly pedantic commentary of one idiotic sort or another.

The debates don't normally have commentary, do they? I don't remember seeing any in 2004.

So who will be watching the debate live here, and on what channel?

I myself plan on watching it through BBC America, since that--to me anyway--seems to be the least likely to have lots of irritatingly pedantic commentary of one idiotic sort or another.

I'll be logging off soon to watch the debate, which I plan to watch on the PBS channel.

The debates don't normally have commentary, do they? I don't remember seeing any in 2004.

Usually before and after, if I recall. Not sure about during.

I'll be logging off soon to watch the debate, which I plan to watch on the PBS channel.

I'm about to start making cookies for the debates. I would offer everyone here some, but I can't throw that far.

I'm about to start making cookies for the debates. I would offer everyone here some, but I can't throw that far.
What kind of cookies are debate cookies?

The debates don't normally have commentary, do they? I don't remember seeing any in 2004.

Pre and Post commentary...nothing during the debate itself.

The debates are the one time that a candidate can't claim the media put a spin on his words, or that his statement was taken out of context, which is probably why McCain didn't want to show...he knows he can't claim bias when he bombs on stage.

I won't be watching live, but I'll be sure to catch a repeat later tonight, preferably on BBC America or C-Span if they're running it.

So who will be watching the debate live here, and on what channel?

I myself plan on watching it through BBC America, since that--to me anyway--seems to be the least likely to have lots of irritatingly pedantic commentary of one idiotic sort or another.

I'll be watching it live on Fox. We should have a pretty good cover, between us.

Just because you may belong to the "all politicians are evil liars and panderers" school, doesn't mean we all have to join.

Does everyone -- politicians included -- sometimes say things that aren't true or are what people want to hear? Yep. Humans are fallible.
So, Obama is a liar and a panderer just like McCain, its only a matter of degree. I can concede that, no problem. My issue is those who take the position that McCain can't be trusted to say anything that is true and the words of Obama came from on high. Both camps are made of idiots, because both of them are liars and panderers.

If you believe that Obama lies less and panders less, fine. I'm not here trying to argue who is the biggest liar. Only to make the point that they are both liars. Since you and Grave have acknowledged that point, well, not much else for me to say here at this point.

People who think this in 2008 are funny. It may have been true in 1788, but it isn't now. If the government really wants to take your guns, they will, second amendment or no. Back when the second amendment was drafted, the difference between the arms available to a private citizen and those that the government equipped soldiers with was very small. Now it is very large. Please, spare us, this line of argument is just silly.

Wait, you mean I can't buy a F-22 and fix it out with Sidewinder missiles? :(

Wait, you mean I can't buy a F-22 and fix it out with Sidewinder missiles? :(

Surprisingly, yes, that is exactly what I mean. A big shock, I know.

Well, you can't do both. I think you might be able to buy an F-22. It's generally the explodey stuff that the government doesn't let you have.

So, Obama is a liar and a panderer just like McCain, its only a matter of degree. I can concede that, no problem. My issue is those who take the position that McCain can't be trusted to say anything that is true and the words of Obama came from on high. Both camps are made of idiots, because both of them are liars and panderers.

If you believe that Obama lies less and panders less, fine. I'm not here trying to argue who is the biggest liar. Only to make the point that they are both liars. Since you and Grave have acknowledged that point, well, not much else for me to say here at this point.

Every single person on Earth is a liar. Your point is therefore entirely meaningless, since if everyone is a liar than the only thing that matters about lying is the degree.

[-Invokes the power of Jon Stewart-]

And In Related News...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Deweytruman12.jpg

Every single person on Earth is a liar. Your point is therefore entirely meaningless, since if everyone is a liar than the only thing that matters about lying is the degree.
That is my point though, it is a matter of degree and I don't see the Obama supporters on this forum acknowledging that their candidate is a liar too. It may be he is not as "bad" of a liar is McCain is, but I don't see anyone who supports him and his positions being willing to acknowledge that he is, in fact, a liar and a panderer. He may not lie and pander as much as McCain, in many respects I think that is a matter of opinion (in many respects it is not, that is not the point).

The point is, Obama does in fact lie and pander in an effort to garner votes and a refusal to acknowledge that fact is disingenuous. When he lies and panders I want to see his supporters stand up and say so, but they don't (I acknowledge the same can be same of rabid McCain supporters, but there are far fewer supporters of him here - when was the last time Cat Tribe denounced an Obama statement or position? Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen that happen yet [no offense to Cat Tribe intended, just using that as the first example that came to mind]).

While it may be a matter of degree as to who lies and panders the most between the candidates, between the supporters, I see little difference, they both accept lies and pandering and don't have the balls to stand up and confront their candidate when he does lie and pander. On these boards (and these alone) however, I see far more acceptance of Obama's lies and pandering than I do of McCain's. Yes, these are liberal boards, but you'd think a loudly as the people who pronounce their "free thinking" they'd be willing to call Obama on the carpet when he deserved it. They don't though, he skates and they attack McCain. I contend that is hypocritical of them (acknowledging the McCain supporters are hypocrites too).

That is my point though, it is a matter of degree and I don't see the Obama supporters on this forum acknowledging that their candidate is a liar too.
Okay, he's a liar. He also breathes oxygen, is a carbon-based lifeform, and has skin. Any other glaringly obvious things that everyone has or does that you want me to acknowledge?

Okay, he's a liar. He also breathes oxygen, is a carbon-based lifeform, and has skin. Any other glaringly obvious things that everyone has or does that you want me to acknowledge?
Thanks, now are you willing to take him to task and call him on it when he lies in the debate or in any other forum he presents his "message" in?

John McCain's camp has released an ad claiming victory in Friday's debate. Yes, that debate. Yes, that debate. Yes. THAT debate.
Thats a wrap....send it to print!!

Thanks, now are you willing to take him to task and call him on it when he lies in the debate or in any other forum he presents his "message" in?

Sure, what the hell.

Thats a wrap....send it to print!!

You thought McCain won? Certainly not. Not you. You have such a long record of basing your analysis on the facts rather than who you already support. I'm shocked.

Sure, what the hell.
In that case, I salute you and look forward to your future threads and posts.

You thought McCain won? Certainly not. Not you. You have such a long record of basing your analysis on the facts rather than who you already support. I'm shocked.
The fact is that McCain did win....he was supposed to. Obama did okay but he certainly was displaying his lack of foreign policy experience.

The fact is that McCain did win....he was supposed to. Obama did okay but he certainly was displaying his lack of foreign policy experience.

Funny how there doesnt' seem to be a single network that agrees with you. Even Fox begrudginly calls it a "tie"

The fact is that McCain did win....he was supposed to. Obama did okay but he certainly was displaying his lack of foreign policy experience.

Not even FOX agrees with you. I think the word "fact" might be misplaced in your post.

That is my point though, it is a matter of degree and I don't see the Obama supporters on this forum acknowledging that their candidate is a liar too. It may be he is not as "bad" of a liar is McCain is, but I don't see anyone who supports him and his positions being willing to acknowledge that he is, in fact, a liar and a panderer. He may not lie and pander as much as McCain, in many respects I think that is a matter of opinion (in many respects it is not, that is not the point).

The point is, Obama does in fact lie and pander in an effort to garner votes and a refusal to acknowledge that fact is disingenuous. When he lies and panders I want to see his supporters stand up and say so, but they don't (I acknowledge the same can be same of rabid McCain supporters, but there are far fewer supporters of him here - when was the last time Cat Tribe denounced an Obama statement or position? Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen that happen yet [no offense to Cat Tribe intended, just using that as the first example that came to mind]).

While it may be a matter of degree as to who lies and panders the most between the candidates, between the supporters, I see little difference, they both accept lies and pandering and don't have the balls to stand up and confront their candidate when he does lie and pander. On these boards (and these alone) however, I see far more acceptance of Obama's lies and pandering than I do of McCain's. Yes, these are liberal boards, but you'd think a loudly as the people who pronounce their "free thinking" they'd be willing to call Obama on the carpet when he deserved it. They don't though, he skates and they attack McCain. I contend that is hypocritical of them (acknowledging the McCain supporters are hypocrites too).

Come now, I have a horse in the race and I'm not going to waste my time beating that horse.

Is Obama perfect? Of course not. But rather than talk about Obama's flaws, I'm going to concentrate on trashing McCain/Palin, because I see them as a real threat to America and the world.

I'm not on here as a scholar or a judge, but as an advocate for my viewpoint(s).

Does that mean that if you or someone else makes a valid criticism of Obama I won't be able to admit it? No, I don't think so. I believe I have intellectual integrity.

But your "unless you are slagging them both you aren't objective" schtick doesn't hold up.

The fact is that McCain did win....he was supposed to. Obama did okay but he certainly was displaying his lack of foreign policy experience.

*censored attack on the poster*

In that case, I salute you and look forward to your future threads and posts.

Posts, maybe. Threads would require me to preemptively look for stuff, and I'm way too lazy to do that.

The fact is that McCain did win....he was supposed to. Obama did okay but he certainly was displaying his lack of foreign policy experience.

haha, ok, i'll move you back to the "elaborate performance art" column

Well, that debate was fun.

My general feeling is that Obama won it overall, but that John McCain kept him from making a few points he really should have since he kept talking over Obama when Obama tried to respond to what he said.

Much of McCain's answers were emotive, empty rhetoric that didn't really answer the question and was simply meant to make him "look" better. There was a small amount of that in Obama's responses as well, but not anywhere near as much.

Obama could use a bit of improvement, of course. A couple of things could've been wrapped up a bit more succinctly, and he needs to try and avoid stumbling as much as he was. Otherwise, though, he walloped McCain and demonstrated significantly that he was actually willing to discuss positions and issues in an informative manner rather than continue to work up empty rhetoric.

That's my feeling about it, anyway.

CNN says that Obama won by about 20%

Despite the title of this thread, which in hindsight probably looks like a bad choice to Neo Art, the actual discussion about the actual debate is over here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=567171).

Despite the title of this thread, which in hindsight probably looks like a bad choice to Neo Art, the actual discussion about the actual debate is over here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=567171).

Yeah I um...I didn't actually think that one through too well, considering I started both threads, and I didn't realize that a rather humorous title at 3pm this afternoon can seem quite serious at 11:30 in the evening.

Oops :$

Yeah I um...I didn't actually think that one through too well, considering I started both threads, and I didn't realize that a rather humorous title at 3pm this afternoon can seem quite serious at 11:30 in the evening.

Oops :$

You're clearly a bad lawyer.

The fact is that McCain did win....he was supposed to. Obama did okay but he certainly was displaying his lack of foreign policy experience.

You're funny.

Last time I pointed out that you were all about the Republicans, you jumped all over it, talking about how you were merely touching a conservative (or "in touch with YOUR conservative"? Something like that).

Now, when even Fox veers between 'a tie', and 'favouring Obama' - you're making kissy faces with McCain.

You just got outed, I think.

Come now, I have a horse in the race and I'm not going to waste my time beating that horse.

Is Obama perfect? Of course not. But rather than talk about Obama's flaws, I'm going to concentrate on trashing McCain/Palin, because I see them as a real threat to America and the world.

I'm not on here as a scholar or a judge, but as an advocate for my viewpoint(s).

Does that mean that if you or someone else makes a valid criticism of Obama I won't be able to admit it? No, I don't think so. I believe I have intellectual integrity.

But your "unless you are slagging them both you aren't objective" schtick doesn't hold up.
Cat Tribe, this is what I honestly respect about you, you are intellectually honest. You concede to being an advocate for a particular point of view and you make no bones about it.

As to the "unless you are slagging them both you aren't objective" well, you concede that you are NOT objective and that you are an advocate for Obama's side. I maintain my position that if you are unwilling to "slag" each candidate, you are, in your own words, an "advocate" of the candidate you won't "slag" and hence you are NOT objective. That's ok though. As you know, advocacy requires you argue for one position and against another, without regard to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the position of your side in the debate. I have done as much for my clients charged with all manner of crimes, and you acknowledge you do as much for Obama here (that is not to say you can't "believe" in your client/candidate, it is just to point out that as an advocate for a position, it does not matter IMO why you advocate, the fact is, as an advocate, you are NOT objective, you have staked out a position and it is now your job to argue it.). It is sort of like (very general analogy forthcoming next) a cop/DA who says the search was legal and a defense attorney who says it wasn't. The facts of what happened are the same for both sides, it is the interpretation and argument over what those facts mean that is different and both sides are an advocate for their interpretation, just as the voters in Nov. will be for our interpretation of what the candidates stand for.

What I respect about you is that you back up your advocacy with fact and reasoned debate, not personal attacks. My issue is with those who support Obama who will NOT concede they are advocating a particular viewpoint and who instead insist they are "neutral" and/or "objective" in expressing their opinion. For the most part, unlike you have done, they will not concede an advocacy bias, but will instead call names and launch into ad hominens. I may lose and I may win, but I'll debate the meaning of things with you all day and express my opinion. Most of the Obama supporters on this board don't deserve the time of day.

And just to make it clear, I am a conservative/libertarian, but I hate McCain and have come to view Palin as nothing more than a well calculated political move. I just dislike Obama a bit more than McCain (I'd say 51% trust in McCain vs. 49% trust in Obama) but I will likely vote for Ron Paul in Nov. because I find both parties and candidates to be completely full of shit and Washington to be so out of touch with reality that no one there deserves my support. Hillary might have gotten my support, but the democrats revealed what hypocritical assholes they were by dumping her for Obama. Huckabee might also have gotten my support since he supports the "Fair Tax" proposal of John Linder and I do to, but his other positions bothered me and needed more scrutiny, since he is irrelevant now though, I haven't thought much about him.

Ok, I'm starting to ramble. Bottom line, I hate McCain and Obama and hate that my choice in Nov. is either a "wasted" vote for Ron Paul or a choice between the lesser of 2 evils. Its like Reagan vs. Carter all over again.

Out of curiosity, if you're a libertarian why would you vote for a candidate who supports DoMA?

Out of curiosity, if you're a libertarian why would you vote for a candidate who supports DoMA?

Because 'Liberatarian' is a sugar-coated catchphrase for 'Statist'?

Out of curiosity, if you're a libertarian why would you vote for a candidate who supports DoMA?because support of the DoMA is not as big a deal to me as others want to make it. I could care less which states recognize gay marriage and whether or not the Federal government does or not. If it is recognized, cool, a who new class of divorce clients. If not, meh, I don't care. If the courts think it is a violation of due process and equal protection, fine, shoot it down. If not, fine, justify it, again, I don't care. It is NOT a defining issue in who is best suited to be president.

I guess I'd say, I will vote for RP because he is the lesser of 3 evils.

I think the way Americans blindly follow any politician, without an adherence to the facts, is disturbing. With that said, who is more qualified to lead our nation into this most difficult and threatening time? I would argue that it is Obama, not McCain, who has blinded the American people to the reality that he has little practical experience, particularly in matters of foreign policy (kind of important now wouldn't you say) as compared to McCain, who in addition to actually having fought in and seen war, also boosts more than 20 years of faithful service in Congress.

because support of the DoMA is not as big a deal to me as others want to make it. I could care less which states recognize gay marriage and whether or not the Federal government does or not. If it is recognized, cool, a who new class of divorce clients. If not, meh, I don't care. If the courts think it is a violation of due process and equal protection, fine, shoot it down. If not, fine, justify it, again, I don't care. It is NOT a defining issue in who is best suited to be president.

I guess I'd say, I will vote for RP because he is the lesser of 3 evils.

Now here's a constant hypocrisy I see coming from every single Libertarian that posts on here that still doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me.

Each and every single one of you harp on and on about how the federal government is evil but say nothing about whether the state level government is bad or good. (Though some harp on about state's rights.)

Why? What is it that makes the federal government somehow that much more horrible than a state level government? They're both governments. The federal government just handles things at a higher level. What makes it different?

Frankly, I do care if some states try to take away people's rights. I try to avoid being ideological on many things, but if there's one thing I'm ideological on, it's social liberties, and therefore someone voting for something like DoMA is extremely important to me, and reflects upon their judgment when it comes to other issues as well.

I think the way Americans blindly follow any politician, without an adherence to the facts, is disturbing. With that said, who is more qualified to lead our nation into this most difficult and threatening time? I would argue that it is Obama, not McCain, who has blinded the American people to the reality that he has little practical experience, particularly in matters of foreign policy (kind of important now wouldn't you say) as compared to McCain, who in addition to actually having fought in and seen war, also boosts more than 20 years of faithful service in Congress.

More than 20 years of wrong votes and bad judgments (among, I concede, some good stuff). Maybe good judgment is what we need in a President.

I think the way Americans blindly follow any politician, without an adherence to the facts, is disturbing. With that said, who is more qualified to lead our nation into this most difficult and threatening time? I would argue that it is Obama, not McCain, who has blinded the American people to the reality that he has little practical experience, particularly in matters of foreign policy (kind of important now wouldn't you say) as compared to McCain, who in addition to actually having fought in and seen war, also boosts more than 20 years of faithful service in Congress.
This is the sort of thing people say when their guy has just gotten his ass handed to him in a debate. They just dial back to square 1 and hope people will forget everything that just happened.

I think the way Americans blindly follow any politician, without an adherence to the facts, is disturbing. With that said, who is more qualified to lead our nation into this most difficult and threatening time? I would argue that it is Obama, not McCain, who has blinded the American people to the reality that he has little practical experience, particularly in matters of foreign policy (kind of important now wouldn't you say) as compared to McCain, who in addition to actually having fought in and seen war, also boosts more than 20 years of faithful service in Congress.

The problem with using experience as a barometer is that it is not always entirely good. Experience can be faulty. McClellen, for example, was an extremely experienced general, yet he consistently made errors in judgment, especially in terms of being slow to react.

I would say that good judgment is far more important than experience. Experience helps, but not if the person has poor judgment, and certainly not if the other person vying for the job demonstrates superior judgment.

Cat Tribe, this is what I honestly respect about you, you are intellectually honest. You concede to being an advocate for a particular point of view and you make no bones about it.

As to the "unless you are slagging them both you aren't objective" well, you concede that you are NOT objective and that you are an advocate for Obama's side. I maintain my position that if you are unwilling to "slag" each candidate, you are, in your own words, an "advocate" of the candidate you won't "slag" and hence you are NOT objective. That's ok though. As you know, advocacy requires you argue for one position and against another, without regard to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the position of your side in the debate. I have done as much for my clients charged with all manner of crimes, and you acknowledge you do as much for Obama here (that is not to say you can't "believe" in your client/candidate, it is just to point out that as an advocate for a position, it does not matter IMO why you advocate, the fact is, as an advocate, you are NOT objective, you have staked out a position and it is now your job to argue it.). It is sort of like (very general analogy forthcoming next) a cop/DA who says the search was legal and a defense attorney who says it wasn't. The facts of what happened are the same for both sides, it is the interpretation and argument over what those facts mean that is different and both sides are an advocate for their interpretation, just as the voters in Nov. will be for our interpretation of what the candidates stand for.

What I respect about you is that you back up your advocacy with fact and reasoned debate, not personal attacks. My issue is with those who support Obama who will NOT concede they are advocating a particular viewpoint and who instead insist they are "neutral" and/or "objective" in expressing their opinion. For the most part, unlike you have done, they will not concede an advocacy bias, but will instead call names and launch into ad hominens. I may lose and I may win, but I'll debate the meaning of things with you all day and express my opinion. Most of the Obama supporters on this board don't deserve the time of day.

And just to make it clear, I am a conservative/libertarian, but I hate McCain and have come to view Palin as nothing more than a well calculated political move. I just dislike Obama a bit more than McCain (I'd say 51% trust in McCain vs. 49% trust in Obama) but I will likely vote for Ron Paul in Nov. because I find both parties and candidates to be completely full of shit and Washington to be so out of touch with reality that no one there deserves my support. Hillary might have gotten my support, but the democrats revealed what hypocritical assholes they were by dumping her for Obama. Huckabee might also have gotten my support since he supports the "Fair Tax" proposal of John Linder and I do to, but his other positions bothered me and needed more scrutiny, since he is irrelevant now though, I haven't thought much about him.

Ok, I'm starting to ramble. Bottom line, I hate McCain and Obama and hate that my choice in Nov. is either a "wasted" vote for Ron Paul or a choice between the lesser of 2 evils. Its like Reagan vs. Carter all over again.

Thanks for the praise, but I do wish to point out that I advocate on here for viewpoints I believe in -- as opposed to being an advocate for a client.

(I note it is rather ironic you praising me for being honest about advocacy, when a few days ago a conservative was complaing that how I wasn't objective enough to debate against.)

And, with all due respect, I don't see how anyone -- least of all a Libertarian -- can support Ron Paul. Sorry.

because support of the DoMA is not as big a deal to me as others want to make it. I could care less which states recognize gay marriage and whether or not the Federal government does or not. If it is recognized, cool, a who new class of divorce clients. If not, meh, I don't care. If the courts think it is a violation of due process and equal protection, fine, shoot it down. If not, fine, justify it, again, I don't care. It is NOT a defining issue in who is best suited to be president.

I guess I'd say, I will vote for RP because he is the lesser of 3 evils.

Now here's a constant hypocrisy I see coming from every single Libertarian that posts on here that still doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me.

Each and every single one of you harp on and on about how the federal government is evil but say nothing about whether the state level government is bad or good. (Though some harp on about state's rights.)

Why? What is it that makes the federal government somehow that much more horrible than a state level government? They're both governments. The federal government just handles things at a higher level. What makes it different?

Frankly, I do care if some states try to take away people's rights. I try to avoid being ideological on many things, but if there's one thing I'm ideological on, it's social liberties, and therefore someone voting for something like DoMA is extremely important to me, and reflects upon their judgment when it comes to other issues as well.

Damn, I thought we were done having to talk about Ron Paul and his non-libertarian Libertarianism. :eek::mad:::p

Damn, I thought we were done having to talk about Ron Paul and his non-libertarian Libertarianism. :eek::mad:::p
He and Ralph Nader are like the Freddie and Jason of US politics. You keep thinking you killed them, but they just keep coming back.

I think the way Americans blindly follow any politician, without an adherence to the facts, is disturbing.


Actually it's pretty universal as Churchill once said:

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

I think the way Americans blindly follow any politician, without an adherence to the facts, is disturbing. With that said, who is more qualified to lead our nation into this most difficult and threatening time? I would argue that it is Obama, not McCain, who has blinded the American people to the reality that he has little practical experience, particularly in matters of foreign policy (kind of important now wouldn't you say) as compared to McCain, who in addition to actually having fought in and seen war, also boosts more than 20 years of faithful service in Congress.

I'm going to get on this again. If we're going to harp on the fact that Obama has no practical executive experience, then it bears mentioning that neither does McCain. With the narrow definition of "experience" that is used whenever an attack on Obama's "experience" is levelled, we can easily extend that to McCain. McCain has been a legislator his entire political life. His only command experience in the armed forces was after his POW experience, at a pilot training school in Florida. Neither have the sort of "experience" that even Bush had, as governor of a state.

So we can either be practical or not. The "inexperienced" tag only sticks in the minds of the ignorant who do not or cannot evaluate the facts completely. Either they're both experienced, or they're both inexperienced. But this is not a campaign between a governor and a senator, where the inexperience issue can be more legitimate. This is senator versus senator. Neither have the experience we're talking about.

I'm going to get on this again. If we're going to harp on the fact that Obama has no practical executive experience, then it bears mentioning that neither does McCain. With the narrow definition of "experience" that is used whenever an attack on Obama's "experience" is levelled, we can easily extend that to McCain. McCain has been a legislator his entire political life. His only command experience in the armed forces was after his POW experience, at a pilot training school in Florida. Neither have the sort of "experience" that even Bush had, as governor of a state.

So we can either be practical or not. The "inexperienced" tag only sticks in the minds of the ignorant who do not or cannot evaluate the facts completely. Either they're both experienced, or they're both inexperienced. But this is not a campaign between a governor and a senator, where the inexperience issue can be more legitimate. This is senator versus senator. Neither have the experience we're talking about.

But, but .....

St. Sarah and her "experience" is the bestest.

Now here's a constant hypocrisy I see coming from every single Libertarian that posts on here that still doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me.

Each and every single one of you harp on and on about how the federal government is evil but say nothing about whether the state level government is bad or good. (Though some harp on about state's rights.)

Why? What is it that makes the federal government somehow that much more horrible than a state level government? They're both governments. The federal government just handles things at a higher level. What makes it different?

Frankly, I do care if some states try to take away people's rights. I try to avoid being ideological on many things, but if there's one thing I'm ideological on, it's social liberties, and therefore someone voting for something like DoMA is extremely important to me, and reflects upon their judgment when it comes to other issues as well.

Because the Feds make everyone do it their way and the states only deal with local opinions. If you don't like what the feds say, tough, you must go along with it. If you don't like a state law, you can move to a state that supports your opinion.

In other words, local/regional support/ideas hold sway in the localities/regions where those ideas are found and the Feds have no ability to 'force' a state/region whose people disagree with the feds to follow along and 'obey' the dictates of the feds when it comes to internal, local concerns.

That is the difference. In a Libertarian scheme, what is good for Louisana is good for Louisana and fuck the rest of the country. In a republican or democrat scheme, what is good for the federal government is good for Louisana, fuck what the people who live there and are affected by it think.

But, but .....

St. Sarah and her "experience" is the bestest.

With the way "experience" is defined for the purposes of McCain attack ads, this is technically correct. Palin is the most experienced of all four candidates.

With the way "experience" is defined for the purposes of McCain attack ads, this is technically correct. Palin is the most experienced of all four candidates.

Which tells us exactly how much "experience" should count.

He and Ralph Nader are like the Freddie and Jason of US politics. You keep thinking you killed them, but they just keep coming back.

Krueger-Voohees 2008: Cleaning House, One Body Part At A Time.

But, but .....

St. Sarah and her "experience" is the bestest.

You do know she has not one but two Foreign countries on her borders right???????

That is the difference. In a Libertarian scheme, what is good for Louisana is good for Louisana and fuck the rest of the country. In a republican or democrat scheme, what is good for the federal government is good for Louisana, fuck what the people who live there and are affected by it think.

What I believe she's getting at, though, is why stop at the state level? Surely your analogy can be extended even further. What's good for Baton Rouge might not be good for Shreveport or New Orleans, to use your example. Why not break the scheme down even further, to the county (or parish) level, or even the local level? Why do libertarians seem content to stop at the state level?

Because the Feds make everyone do it their way and the states only deal with local opinions. If you don't like what the feds say, tough, you must go along with it. If you don't like a state law, you can move to a state that supports your opinion.
Can you prove some evidence for this?

Furthermore, even if you are right, what happens when there are no states that support your views?

In other words, local/regional support/ideas hold sway in the localities/regions where those ideas are found and the Feds have no ability to 'force' a state/region whose people disagree with the feds to follow along and 'obey' the dictates of the feds when it comes to internal, local concerns.

Really? Because it seems to me like that's splitting hairs, especially since the states are rather huge. California alone has an extreme split between its urban areas and its rural areas.

State governments are no more local than, say, the British government is to Edinburgh.

That is the difference. In a Libertarian scheme, what is good for Louisana is good for Louisana and fuck the rest of the country. In a republican or democrat scheme, what is good for the federal government is good for Louisana, fuck what the people who live there and are affected by it think.
Except for the various minorities that would get screwed over in your system. "What's good for white Louisianans is good for the darkies too, and if they don't like it, fuck 'em!" if we want to use a 50s example.

Or today's example regarding homosexuality.

Really, now, you can do better than this.

Thanks for the praise, but I do wish to point out that I advocate on here for viewpoints I believe in -- as opposed to being an advocate for a client.and as noted, it is possible to advocate for a position you believe it. However, when you do so, don't pretend to be 100% objective. It is your willingness to acknowledge your are an advocate and then back up your reasoning for the advocacy and your belief with facts that I respect. I may disagree with your interpretation of the facts and what they truly mean, but that goes to the example I gave about arguing whether a search was legal or not. Facts are facts, it is how we interpret and argue them that may differ.

(I note it is rather ironic you praising me for being honest about advocacy, when a few days ago a conservative was complaing that how I wasn't objective enough to debate against.)Well that wasn't me and believe me, I have plenty of issues with so called "conservatives" as I hope I have made clear.

And, with all due respect, I don't see how anyone -- least of all a Libertarian -- can support Ron Paul. Sorry.Because he is, to my Libertarian mind, a better choice than McCain or Obama - as I said, he is the lesser of 3 evils.


Damn, I thought we were done having to talk about Ron Paul and his non-libertarian Libertarianism. :eek::mad:::p
[/quote]I know, fuck, sorry, it was just that the debate made it all the more clear to me that McCain should have chosen Obama for his running mate and vice-versa. More of the same no matter which of them wins.

Because the Feds make everyone do it their way and the states only deal with local opinions. If you don't like what the feds say, tough, you must go along with it. If you don't like a state law, you can move to a state that supports your opinion.

I've always been rather amused by the idea that someone can just up and move. For most people, it's a bit more complicated than that - not to mention often taking more money and security than they have.

But, even aside from that, the exact same argument could be made for a national government. If you don't like it, just move to another country.

The precise location in which you live is not the point -the removal of individual rights is. And that removal is a problem whether it is carried out at the most central or the most local level.

That is the difference. In a Libertarian scheme, what is good for Louisana is good for Louisana and fuck the rest of the country. In a republican or democrat scheme, what is good for the federal government is good for Louisana, fuck what the people who live there and are affected by it think.

In such a scheme, what you are really saying is that what is good for 51% of Louisiana is good for 100% of Louisiana, whether it is actually a valid governemnt intervention or not.

It's fine if that is your view, but don't pretend it has anything to do with individual rights. That's a matter of governmental "rights" -you just place the government at a more local level.

Because the Feds make everyone do it their way and the states only deal with local opinions. If you don't like what the feds say, tough, you must go along with it. If you don't like a state law, you can move to a state that supports your opinion.


Then why haven't all the libertarians left the country?

You're funny.

Last time I pointed out that you were all about the Republicans, you jumped all over it, talking about how you were merely touching a conservative (or "in touch with YOUR conservative"? Something like that).

Now, when even Fox veers between 'a tie', and 'favouring Obama' - you're making kissy faces with McCain.

You just got outed, I think.
In all honesty, it is easier for me to be unbiased in my assessment? I believe that McCain was better overall. The rest of the window dressing in your post is truly unwarranted.

In all honesty, it is easier for me to be unbiased in my assessment? I believe that McCain was better overall. The rest of the window dressing in your post is truly unwarranted.

You think? Considering you taking me to task for suggesting you were leaning towards Repulicans... your current policy of flying in the face of even the rightwing media seems worthy of mention.

McCain did okay. Especially when he appealed to emotion, he was convincing. The hushed tones, the I-think-I-Might-cry damp eyes... very good.

But that was not the bulk of the debate. During the bulk of the debate, he looked like a pugilist... ready to swing at all comers. And... well, Obama just looked more like a statesman.

In all honesty, it is easier for me to be unbiased in my assessment?

Are you asking a question? Is it easier for you to be unbiased? No. Given your complete inability to admit even the smallest positive thing about Barack Obama ever since Hillary Clinton was defeated in the primary, I'd say your evaluation of the debate is more biased than just about anyone else who posts on this entire forum. McCain could have conceded the presidency tonight and you still would have called it a McCain victory, all in this empty and shallow crusade to be able to say how right you were if Obama loses on November 5th. Not even FOX News, paragon of unbiased news reporting, believes McCain won this debate, yet you're so sure of it.

In all honesty, it is easier for me to be unbiased in my assessment? I believe that McCain was better overall. The rest of the window dressing in your post is truly unwarranted.

considering some of your past comments?........I am not so sure.....

Are you asking a question? Is it easier for you to be unbiased? No. Given your complete inability to admit even the smallest positive thing about Barack Obama ever since Hillary Clinton was defeated in the primary, I'd say your evaluation of the debate is more biased than just about anyone else who posts on this entire forum. McCain could have conceded the presidency tonight and you still would have called it a McCain victory, all in this empty and shallow crusade to be able to say how right you were if Obama loses on November 5th. Not even FOX News, paragon of unbiased news reporting, believes McCain won this debate, yet you're so sure of it.
Shall I remind you of your own words (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14043547&postcount=371)?

Sort of. McCain did really well with the Russia question, but other than that Obama has seemed to win.
You too are guilty of unnecessary window dressing.

I edited the title and was going to leave this open for the diehards who still wanted to pursue ... whatever it was you were pursuing.

But it seems as if it's just going down the usual plughole, so if there's anything you actually want to debate, please start a separate thread for it, and if you want to comment on the McCain-Obama debate, go to the existing thread.