I think McCain actually did well! I think he finally and decisively pointed out all the reasons we should not vote for Obama and should vote for him!
It's about damn time!!
How about you?
Printable View
I think McCain actually did well! I think he finally and decisively pointed out all the reasons we should not vote for Obama and should vote for him!
It's about damn time!!
How about you?
I thought McCain did well, and I was actually enjoying some of it. It is nice to see the two both saying what they think. I screamed and woke up the baby when McCain said if you wanted to run against George Bush you should have run for President four years ago :roflmao
He did seem confident and decisive instead of reactionary. It was important that both these guys got out what the voters need to know and what the voters hadn't heard much of yet in the debates so far
McCain looked like he was sucking on lemons. His facial contortions were disturbing to watch. His personal attacks fell flat. Again. Maybe in 2012...
I think this was McCain's strongest performance of the three, by far. I thought he lost the first two, but I think he won this one.
Obama hasn't really impressed me in any of them. He has given basically the same performance each time: flat, vague, and based on talking points that most people, liberal or conservative, would have trouble disagreeing with. (Who really disagrees with getting rid of government programs that don't work and shoring up those that do? McCain would agree to that, but they have different definitions of what "working" programs look like. Obama hasn't gotten specific on many of these proposals.)
But Obama's performances in the last two were good enough, and that was all he needed because McCain was almost incoherent much of the time.
Tonight Obama stuck to the same talking points, but McCain was better prepared with sharper arguments. I score tonight as a victory for McCain, and I bet the race tightens further by next Monday.
Josh
Which reminds me Billy Jeff, when are you going to post your picture in the "What do you look like" thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
By the way, nice seeing you around again!;)
Oh, and Schieffer did a good job. The questions covered a broader range of issues than previous debates, and he challenged both candidates several times with good follow-up questions. I wish there were more journalists like him these days.
Josh
My impression - McCain cemented his defeat. I couldn't believe he'd continue dwelling on the negative campaign part even though Obama took the high road (easy choice when you lead in the polls) and kept rebuffing his statements, while pointing out this is pointless and fares bad with voters.
If I have to score it I would rule this on in favor of Obama. I thought his points were better articulated to start with, but his responses to McCain's atacks were more to the point than McCain's responses to Obama's.
I would be surprised if the independents would favor McCain's performance, it seemed way more in tune with base voters. However far as whose propositions they'd agree more with is completely different issue.
Interesting to see the statistics on this one - I'm not an american, and may be completely wrong on how this is perceived here.
It's ok gugi, you're among friends! You can say it...go ahead...Oh, alright, I'll say it for you: McCain hit it out of the ballpark!!! And its about time too!!
""McCain hit it out of the ballpark!!!"
JMS: You are obviously confusing things with the Phillies/Dodgers game. McCain just went 0 for 3 as of tonite's performance...
:roflmao:roflmao;):DQuote:
Originally Posted by billyjeff2
I would most certainly have loved to see McCain hit it out of the ballpark, but I already said what my perception is and gave a quick argument. I can expand it, of course, but it's kind of silly in this format.
May be we can discuss it in the chat sometime esp. if Josh shows up :).
(Hi, Josh, I'll be catching up with your post count any time now, better start posting again :) )
I can kind of see how those already decided for McCain think he may have done better than the past two debates (for me they are not as fresh in memory anymore, so I can't comment), but I don't think preaching to the choir helps him, not at this point. I think that the independent voters don't really care who attacks whom, but would rather favor more time spent in each of them talking on the specifics of their plans and less about their opponent's (and when they do the later preferably w/o a mischaracterization).
Yes, I agree, I think the format also allowed for this much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshEarl
But his job was somewhat easier since they didn't have to cover any foreign policy, which was supposed to be dominating the first debate, and we saw how that got scaled down then.
I want to add Joe the Plumber to my list of phrases I never want to hear again.
Obama was consistent, McCain did much better, but he cannot hide his disdain for Obama - the facial expression were disturbing. I also find it hard to believe that McCain would take a penny from the Pentagon's budget.
Obama again did not take the bait on Ayers, ACORN, or abortion (where did that come from?).
McCain's claims to balance the budget a load of BS - contrary to the battle cry of the GOP "Tax and Spend Democrats",in the 60+ years since the end of WWII, the US debt, starting with Truman’s term in 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% annually, while Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% annually...thus, Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Where did the surplus CLinton left disappear to?
McCain fumbled the response regarding the hateful comments which he and Palin allowed at their rallies...too little, too late. His sengue from the Ayers topic to his plan and tax cuts at the end of that section was bizzare.
How he could sit and spout that load of drivel about Palin and not laugh is amazing. This woman is so in bed with big oil, their execs, families, lobbyists and lawyers, I am surpsied that the Dems have not called her on it. I cannot see this woman sitting on the dias in the Senate with not clue as to what to do.
McCain kept beating the dead horse about sitting down without pre-conditions...has no one on his staff told him that that has been shown as a blatant mis-quote?
Obama offerd more tangible metrics on what he intended to do and what the results could be. McCain kept on about offshore drilling....and Joe the Plumber.
If McCain had spent his campaign concentrating on the economy and showing how he is going to fix it, I might feel differently; as it is, he has abandoned his long-standing principles and courted support from people he condemned only a few years ago for the sake of votes.
I just love how Obama won the debate being intelligent, clear and concise. Way to go Dems. you got this one sown up! :bow
X
I could swear I heard the exact same thing 8 years ago and 4 years agoQuote:
Originally Posted by xman
Yeah!! Me too, but not from a Canadian!! Now that's different.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
Hasn't anyone put together Obama's two phrases, "95% of Americans will receive tax cuts" and "We're gonna roll back the Bush tax cuts"?
Rolling back a tax cut IS a tax increase!
He CANNOT have it both ways! So which is the lie?
There doesn't have to be a lie. No need to be so readily angered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter
I don't have the stats so I could be wrong, but is it possible that 95% of the Americans are not the ones who benefited from the Bush tax cuts?
If the Bush tax cuts favored the very rich (which comprise only a couple of% of the total population), then it is relatively easy to reverse the process and distribute the massive tax cuts of the very rich among the other 95% without changing the total tax income for the government.
For the people who have to scrape to make it to the end of the week / month on their paycheck (which seem to be a great many right now) this could make a very big difference.
And even if it would not be zero sum game and the government would get less tax income, it is perfectly possible to repeal the Bush tax cuts AND give 95% of the Americans a new tax cut.
Both are not mutually exclusive, and it is actually a normal thing for taxation rules to change over the course of years.
Are you feeding at the DNC trough also Bruno?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
No idea what the DNC is, but I was just trying to defuse some anger with logic and reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
DNC= Democratic National Commitee!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
That line of reasoning could lighten things for one group, but potentially anger another Bruno!
By the way, what anger?
By the way Bruno, This post was only meant in fun!Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
There doesn't have to be a lie. No need to be so readily angered.
I don't have the stats so I could be wrong, but is it possible that 95% of the Americans are not the ones who benefited from the Bush tax cuts?
Bruno
Bruno, it doesn't work the way you described. BTW, I am not angered, merely bewildered. In a SANE world, neither of those clowns would be a candidate for President. They would have been weeded out in the first couple of Primaries. Obama doesn't actually SAY anything. He bloviates and people hear what they like. McCain isn't any better. Neither of them should have gotten this far!
I am a Lower Middle Class Taxpayer. I got some nice Tax reductions when the "Bush Tax Cuts" were enacted. If they are rolled back, my Taxes WILL go up. There are a lot more than 5% of us who were helped by the Tax Cuts and a lot more than 5% of us will get hammered when they are taken away from us. So NO, 95% of Americans are not going to get an Obama tax cut. :mad:
There was some commentary afterward that I felt was very true. We're facing a time when tax cuts may not be possible. Yeah, it's tough, it's probably going to get worse before it gets better, but we're all going to have to tighten our purse string, pitch in, work together, and work through this pile of s&*t we're in. It's nice to hear about having a little extra spending money at the end of the week/month/year but the problems that are facing our country are more important than the amount of money in question. Our national future is hanging in the balance, we should all be asking what can we do for our country, not what our country can do for us (to quote a good man).
As for the debate, I don't think either candidate "won"; they both had good points, they both had issues that needed to be clarified.
One point of contention: McCain tends to put a lot of weight on aspects that make him look desirable as a candidate, but have very little substance to them. This was especially true in his closing statement. Things like serving this country for your entire life and being from a long line of patriotic veterans/public servants (which I can claim as well, from the civil war to WWI & II, to Korea & Vietnam, as well as public office at various points) means absolutely nothing with respect to how you are going to address the issues that are on the table.
Brother Jeeter's post called Obama a liar and used capital letters, which usually infer anger. If that was not anger, then I was wrong about BJ (apologies for that).Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
While my political views are no secret, I would have made the same reply if Brother Jeeter would have said 'McCain' instead of 'Obama' (assuming for a moment McCain would have uttered those 2 phrases)
My reply was not meant to judge those actions (the tax cuts) but to indicate that there is not lie, and that both are not mutually exclusive.
Now to answer your point:
The economy is in trouble, and a lot of people are on the brink.
If they go over, the economy will truly be borked because the only thing keeping an economy going is if the money is going round. If a tax cut for the majority means that they will get some breathing room instead of losing their homes / not being able to pay for medical care, isn't that a good thing?
Especially since they will spend that money and keep the economy going.
Isn't that more important than the ability of the very rich to get richer at a higher rate than normal, through a tax cut they only got because they had enough money to be important to Bush?
"One could argue that the "Bush tax cuts" were the ones pertaining to the wealthiest 5% and to big businesses..."
Russell Baldridge
I am Lower Middle Class (see my previous post) and I was helped by the 'Bush Tax Cuts." And I will be hurt when they are taken away. I live on a fixed income and everything and I mean EVERYTHING has increased in price, since those tax cuts were enacted!
I dont know what all the tax cuts pertained to, but I know Bush's cuts also raised the child credit (or lowered the income requirement for the EIC) which only applies to low income households. You can argue the cuts pertained to the top 5% but you can't argue they only pertained to themQuote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
Like Brother Jeeter wonders, I do too. Obama would roll back the cuts that Bush passed on to the lower income brackets (at least those with kids) and then replace them with something else - 4 more years of tax cuts either way I guess. More of the same failed economic policies... Higher taxes are probably the real changes we can believe in though
That depends on the amount and % involved. Your Bush tax cut might disappear, but you would get a new tax cut which could be in the same amount for you, but still favor those earning less than you, and disfavoring those earning more than you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter
I don't have numbers so I can't prove it, but it's at least possible.
This is what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
See Jeeters second post! I am lower middle class but by most Government definitions I am dirt poor! Bushes tax cuts put extra money in my pocket! I think your news sources are a little slanted!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
By the way, Jeeter types that way because he has trouble seeing, not because he is angry!
"Brother Jeeter's post called Obama a liar and used capital letters, which usually infer anger...My reply was not meant to judge those actions (the tax cuts) but to indicate that there is not lie, and that both are not mutually exclusive."
Bruno
Bruno, read it again. I did not call anyone a liar. I pointed out two opposing positions and I said, "He CANNOT have it both ways." Perhaps I should have followed that with "Which one is the truth?" My bad.
I use capitalization, NOT to show anger, but in place of voice inflection.
Now...if you have read all three of my previous posts in this thread, you should understand why I feel that those two statements are in fact mutually exclusive. And if that is in fact the case, only one of them CAN be true.
They might both be wrong, but they can't both be right.
I did read them. If someone says 2 things, and you say one of them has to be a lie, you are technically calling that man a liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter
But ok it was a misunderstanding so let's leave that part of the argument behind.
I don't say they are not mutually exclusive, I say they don't have to be. The cuts don't even have to be the same size.
If I take away 1 tax cut, and give everybody a new tax cut, I have done both, and depending on the amounts and specific number involved, you can come out ahead, not notice, or come out behind.
:y:y"We're off to see the Wizard...":y:y
Meaning, I'm going to bed.
It's only 10 AM :eek: ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter
G'Night.
That's the extent of BHOBAMA's knowledge about the economy, don't forget, his only real experience is as a Community Organizer, and partying with the Ayers, Wrights, Rezcos, etc :roflmao:roflmao:roflmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter
Saying that this was the best debate performance so far by McCain is like saying Star Wars The Phantom Menace was the best of the three new Star Wars films--they all sucked, this one just happened to have sucked less than the other two....
I actually voted for McCain back in 2000 in the republican primaries just because I was so very strongly against the idea that G.W. would get the nod. McCain has lost a step (or two) since then.
Time to be put out to pasture.
That goes for GW too...:p
Yet, somehow he appears to be capable to run a consistent campaign, while his opponent with whatever experience he may have can't. I would argue that at the end of the day what matters is not the 'experience' or pedigree one has, but whether they are up to the job, or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
If McCain has better knowledge of the economy, he clearly can't articulate it, or he would not be spending his time and money telling you who Obama's partying with, while omitting to mention his own parties.
Brother Jeeter, at least over the last weeks Obama has been telling us that at the end of the day when all tax cuts are repealed and the new ones are instated only those who make more than 250,000 will be paying more taxes than they do now. I don't think he's lying about this, or the other side would've made a huge deal about it. 250,000 a year is not lower middle class in amarica, so you should be paying less taxes under his plan. Do you realy care if they are called "Bush's tax cuts or Obama's tax cuts". May be there ought to be a choice for those in the 250,000 bracket only - get taxed either under the Bush's code or under Obama's code, see how many would pick to pay the Bush taxes.
Why do you think the stock market has crashed?
In anticipation to the potential Obama's dividend and capital gain tax increase.
I don't think 28% capital gain tax will lure investors into the market. And there's a lot of middle class people that have investments and don't welcome Obama's program.
And don't think rich people are willing to "spread the wealth" for ever, they always find a loop hole to save their money, and the rest of us will get stuck with paying the bill.
That's why all the bail-outs are not making any impact on Wall Street.
We're on the way to socialism/communism, and some of us already know what happens next.
What has this to do with the Presidential debate last night?Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
Because several major banks and financial institutions have collapsed as a result of the credit crisis that was building up way before Obama even ran in the primaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaja
Please tell me. Most of us in western europe have been living in partly socialist countries for over half a century, and some far longer than that. So whatever bad is happening in your vision of socialism should happen any day now... :wQuote:
Originally Posted by Navaja