Race for the presidency political discussion thread

[Gulp]

Factcheck.org is balanced enough that Dick Cheney recommended it during the last election debates.

[KingArthur1976]

I think you may have totally misinterpreted my post ransom. In no way was I demeaning either of your rights to engage in, and perhaps persuade each other's political ideals.

I was simply referring to your argument of the particular sources of information you both were using. It was getting pretty obvious that you'd come to a stalemate on that particular issue and I thought it may be time to move forward.

I applaud you both for your views and willingness to openly discuss them. I think I'll apply to be a moderator at the debate in Oxford tonight.

[DrRansom]

Originally Posted by KingArthur1976

..I was simply referring to your argument of the particular sources of information you both were using. It was getting pretty obvious that you'd come to a stalemate on that particular issue and I thought it may be time to move forward..

Ah, I getcha. Seems like we've moved past that now. This thread moves so fast..

edit: you don't wanna debate me! I'm like a guy on the internet with lipstick! ..wait, nevermind.

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by DrRansom

Ok here's my real point. I can buy why he'd vote for point 2. Point 1 though, the whole reason they introduced the Bill if you remember was because of thier gruesome discovery that the law hadn't been working. So if we leave that, then the only logical reason to oppose would be point 2. So I ask, is what you give as point 2 enough of a reason to allow what was going on to go on unchecked? And is that showing good leadership qualities?

There is a difference in a law that just doesn't work and one that is not being policed properly. Why not just make penalties tougher on the current law? Why not add more oversight? More accountability? Why create an entire new law to try and redefine R v W?

The Illinois Republicans had a bunch of different options they chose one. Obama was against it on the grounds that it was anti-abortion rights.

He stood up for what he believed. Sounds like leadership qualities to me.


EDIT: For what it is worth I am outta here for the weekend. Go home and watch the debate. I'll see ya back here on Monday.


Bannister

[DrRansom]

Originally Posted by Bannister

There is a difference in a law that just doesn't work and one that is not being policed properly. Why not just make penalties tougher on the current law? Why not add more oversight? More accountability? Why create an entire new law to try and redefine R v W?

The Illinois Republicans had a bunch of different options they chose one. Obama was against it on the grounds that it was anti-abortion rights.

He stood up for what he believed. Sounds like leadership qualities to me...

Ok, to summarize on what we agree was voted on, babies were being delivered when the mothers had intened (and tried) to abort them, they were subsequently killed by leaving them alone to die. Current law which states that it is illegal not to help those babies was not being taken serious enough.
A bill was written to protect those allready born babies by amending the law to create stiffer policies for people who allowed babies just to sit there and die.
The Bill was eventually passe with broad bipartisan support (including noted abortion proponent Boxer).
Obama was one of the few who did not want to make penalties stiffer for people who let allready born babies die because he "thought it might affet R v W?"

I think he probably did think he was standing up for abortion rights.But it was a gross oversight to imagine that whatever statement he was wanting to make about RvW was more important than the crisis at hand of protecting living breathing (albiet not very well) people.

Here comes the spin (cover your orifices): is this then a character quality we can expect? That in the face of a crisis where he might be wrong, he'd choose, to the detrement of his people, to contend with the status of his rightnes? That should be a big question this election, no?

EDIT: For what it is worth I am outta here for the weekend. Go home and watch the debate. I'll see ya back here on Monday.

Have a good one man. sry if it got overheated at points. Passionate topic yknow?

[Gulp]

Did anyone catch this segment from CNN's Jack Cafferty? He shows the Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin. Couric asks about the $700,000,000,000 bailout, and Palin looks like a cheesy TV robot with its wires crossed. She can't figure out which talking point to use.

I feel sorry for her, and I'm not being facetious. She's in way over her head.

[DrRansom]

Originally Posted by Gulp

Did anyone catch this segment from CNN's Jack Cafferty? He shows the Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin. Couric asks about the $700,000,000,000 bailout, and Palin looks like a cheesy TV robot with its wires crossed. She can't figure out which talking point to use.

I feel sorry for her, and I'm not being facetious. She's in way over her head.

Pft.. she has more experience than Obama at dealing with governmental budgets and solving economic problems. Obama's got more well rehearsed answers though, I'll give him that.

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by DrRansom

Pft.. she has more experience than Obama at dealing with governmental budgets and solving economic problems. Obama's got more well rehearsed answers though, I'll give him that.

It's not being well rehearsed. It's leadership. Obama is good at motivating people, and an important part of doing that is just being smooth. People aren't in love with Obama because he's a good public speaker. He's makes them feel proud to be an American.

[Onacara]

Originally Posted by Gulp

It's not being well rehearsed. It's leadership. Obama is good at motivating people, and an important part of doing that is just being smooth. People aren't in love with Obama because he's a good public speaker. He's makes them feel proud to be an American.

One thing Obama showed he is not good at it is being respectful. Throughout the debate he constantly referred to McCain as John and not Senator McCain as he should have.

Also his use of the word "gotta" instead of "have to" was a little bit disheartening.

It was a good debate and like a good prize fight too close to call....but McCain put Obama up against the ropes a few more times.

[Agent Minivann]

After watching the debate I have to wonder if the new strategy of the democratic party is to campaign against George W Bush. There is the long standing republican party strategy of painting the opponent a liberal, are the democrats now going to try to paint the opponent a Bush clone?

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by Onacara

One thing Obama showed he is not good at it is being respectful. Throughout the debate he constantly referred to McCain as John and not Senator McCain as he should have.

Also his use of the word "gotta" instead of "have to" was a little bit disheartening.

It was a good debate and like a good prize fight too close to call....but McCain put Obama up against the ropes a few more times.

Perhaps, Obama should have said Senator McCain instead of calling him John, however he was much more gracious in giving McCain his due on issues that he agreed with. I don't recall hearing McCain at least give Obama props for anything. Whether they have their fundamental differences on many issues, it seems it odd that McCain can't find one thing to say in giving Obama his due on a particular issue. Though considering the negative adds that McCain has used against Obama, I don't consider he's been very respectful either.

While I agee that they both had their moments, I give neg rep for the distortion of the truth and misleading statements that McCain used against Obama.

Oh and regarding Obama's use of "gotta"; considering Bush's masterful communications skills (not), I can live with "gotta" once in a while. Though I draw the line at "finna", I don't want the next President saying "finna".

[jbbnbsmith]

Both candidates did well. Obviously each side feels their man won, but both definitely had a good showing. My biased opinions and thoughts include these:

1. I grew very tired of Obama talking about the "failures of the past 8 years under this administration and John McCain." I could see this as a meaningful tactic if Cheney were running for president, but McCain is definitely not a third term for Bush. I found this tactic very annoying, especially after hearing it at least a dozen time in this debate. especially on the very day that McCain is going against Bush's version of the bail outs. Get some new material.

2. McCain wasted too much time talking about senate entitlements. He made his point, but then he needed to move on and address other issues.

3. I was frustrated along with the moderator that neither candidate was willing to answer the question about what plans they would be willing to cut should the economic crisis continue into their term. At least McCain eventually gave some answer (spending freeze - not very specific)

4. I thought McCain got to the heart of the Iraq issue when he said that the job of the next president is not to determine if we should have started that war, but to figure out how to win that war. Barak may have been right in 2003, but that doesn't really change the current facts.

5. Both candidates tried to attack each others judgement by recalling bad past decisions. Bottom line on this seemed that both made some errors in judgement, but hind sight is always 20/20. I'm not interested in finger pointing, I want to know how the mess is going to be fixed.

6. Obviously the current economic mess can not be laid at the feet of any one person, administration, or party. When Obama blames the current crisis on Bush's two terms that is obviously not the whole story. Much of this traces back to Clinton as well. But there is plenty of guilt to go around.

Just my quick musings.