DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> After first debate: Obama, or McCain?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 95, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/27/2008 02:54:18 PM · #51
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Wow. This devolved quite quickly.

Personally, I think they should ban candidates from TV and commercials EXCEPT for the debates. We learned more about both candidates from their own mouths in 90 minutes than in 12 months. Both presented themselves well. We are left with the delightful position of being able to chew over what each thinks and which we agree with more.


I should hope more people have seen these two candidates speak on the issues either on TV or live than just those 90 minutes yesterday. They have only been campaigning for over a year now. CSPAN, YouTUBE are our friends...

For the lazy (not you Doc, you're just sneezy):

McCain townhall meetings (see related videos as well)

Obama on the debate (also see related videos on the right for more)

Message edited by author 2008-09-27 15:01:32.
09/27/2008 02:59:31 PM · #52
Originally posted by Prash:


Kudos on the thought about using the billions at home rather than outside of it.
Also, the wars must be bringing something more precious than the losses we suffer of human lives and tax money (I am perhaps blind or naive enough to see 'what' though). Still looking to understand, have found no answers yet (sadly).


It's all about OIL

It is now, and likely always was about the oil. The Bush family used to, and may still own oil fields in the middle east. And it is Bush who is trying so hard to use this time to get American oil companies back into Iraq, after being expelled years ago.
09/27/2008 03:01:57 PM · #53
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Originally posted by Prash:

So the first presidential debate of the term is over. I watched parts of it with much zeal. I am just trying to get a general impression of whether this debate alone has helped people swing their opinion about the two candidates.

Did you switch your opinion about the two, after the debate, and why?


Clearly McCain, hands down. Presidential. Leadership. Good plans for our Future. Obama proved he was a zero.


And of course you viewed it with a completely unbiased, open mind, right? ;)


Open eyes, yes. Open minds are dangerous.


You would put them all in jail Hawkeye? No need to answer. Saddam had a similar philosophy I think but thankfully because of people like you, he's dead.

/scratches head/

Message edited by author 2008-09-27 15:03:59.
09/27/2008 03:45:56 PM · #54
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:

Open minds are dangerous.


Definitely the biggest threat to dogma there is.
09/27/2008 03:49:09 PM · #55
Originally posted by fldave:

Originally posted by karmat:

Next question. Is it significant that Senator Obama repeatedly refers to Sen. McCain as John, and President Bush as "your president," while Sen. McCain never calls Sen. Obama by his first name?


Might be some psychological game playing, same as McCain never looking Obama in the eyes.
Of course, psychologically speaking, a liar tends to not look you in the eyes.


...but a scoundrel will look into your eyes when they are lying to you.
09/27/2008 05:34:56 PM · #56
Originally posted by faidoi:

Originally posted by fldave:

Originally posted by karmat:

Next question. Is it significant that Senator Obama repeatedly refers to Sen. McCain as John, and President Bush as "your president," while Sen. McCain never calls Sen. Obama by his first name?


Might be some psychological game playing, same as McCain never looking Obama in the eyes.
Of course, psychologically speaking, a liar tends to not look you in the eyes.


...but a scoundrel will look into your eyes when they are lying to you.


Or maybe McCain was just uncomfortable. These formal debates are much more suited to Obama than McCain. McCain is more in his element at small townhall meetings where he can appear more personable and don't have to worry about winning the intellectual high ground so much. Obama is just the opposite. He can win on the intellectual high ground and plays to that strength but often fails in making himself more personable. If there was a candidate that did both he/she would be beating both of these candidates quite easily, IMO.

Message edited by author 2008-09-27 17:36:21.
09/27/2008 08:04:42 PM · #57
I think that both did equally poorly, and since I am slightly leaning towards Obama,
I'm thinking that McCain had a slight edge. Neither one answered tough questions directly, but tried to give replies that cater to their base, and to shoehorn them into the answer. I did not learn anything new about either one of them.

It was ridiculous to watch the 'ticker' on the CNN that traced three groups (dems/reps/inds) and their reaction to the candidate speaking. Following the red and blue lines was a waste of time. The green/ind line was the one to watch. The reds and the blues moved according to who was speaking. Even when they gave virtually the same answers the red and blue lines diverged.

(The same I might say for this thread.

I'm curious if this is going to last, and how long. There were a very few fear-mongering responses in this one. If we keep the fears out of this election (fear from nukes, gays, and abortion) and keep concentrating on economy, well-being, and foreign policy, we may get some intelligent discussions and learn more about either candidate's ability to reason.

Will be looking forward to more debates. Mostly to learn about people based on their reactions, rather than learning about candidates.

(With an open mind, arrest me for it if you want)

09/27/2008 08:29:52 PM · #58
Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I can't wait to see what "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" do with the debate.


And here is the problem with a lot of young voters... they are allowing comedians to shape their view of the world...

not picking on you in particular... I will be watching those show as well but young people should spend more time informing themselves from legitimate sources than listening to these shows as if they were news casts.


I'd kind of like to know where your assumption that "young people" don't inform themselves and take shows like "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" seriously as news casts comes from. Do you have data to back this up?

Personally, I think it's a hell of a stretch to assume that.

Message edited by author 2008-09-27 20:30:18.
09/27/2008 08:49:03 PM · #59
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by dponlyme:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I can't wait to see what "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" do with the debate.


And here is the problem with a lot of young voters... they are allowing comedians to shape their view of the world...

not picking on you in particular... I will be watching those show as well but young people should spend more time informing themselves from legitimate sources than listening to these shows as if they were news casts.


I'd kind of like to know where your assumption that "young people" don't inform themselves and take shows like "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" seriously as news casts comes from. Do you have data to back this up?

Personally, I think it's a hell of a stretch to assume that.


Maybe here? Young America's news source: Jon Stewart

ETA: And maybe that's a good thing??? Survey: Daily Show/Colbert Viewers Most Knowledgable, Fox News Viewers Rank Lowest

Message edited by author 2008-09-27 20:52:34.
09/27/2008 08:53:38 PM · #60
Originally posted by yanko:



Maybe here? Young America's news source: Jon Stewart


Interesting, and if indicative of the entire population of people between 19 and 29, disappointing. Then again, when many of the "real" news shows focus on people like Nancy Grace, Wolf Blitzer, Hannity and Combs, and Bill O'Reilly, perhaps it actually isn't all that surprising ;)

*EDIT* Heh, saw your edit. Oh noes!

Message edited by author 2008-09-27 20:54:56.
09/27/2008 09:14:16 PM · #61
Originally posted by kenskid:

Hey cpanaioti

If we're so F'd up as you say can you please tell me why MILLIONS take risks every day to make it to the US legal and Illegal? Can you tell me why thousands upon thousands come here for their higher education?

Can you tell me if we're so F'd up why we aid and feed more poor countries than any other in the world?

I'll gladly make a deal...we keep every US dollar spent on aid to the rest of the world here in the US. We use it to pay off our debt and keep a balanced budget. Your part of the deal is to have your country and all other countries take up the MONEY slack to aid the poor of the world.

...is it a deal?


This is what depresses me about the US. In many ways it is a great country, but blind patriotism is far too prevalent. It generates this kind of prickly unthinking response to any form of criticism, and an introverted and partially unjustified sense of self worth (and a failure to appreciate the worth of others).

A call to patriotism is: a call to base emotions; simplistic politicking; cynical exploitation of the unsophisticated voter.
09/27/2008 10:05:38 PM · #62
Originally posted by kenskid:

Hey cpanaiotiI'll gladly make a deal...we keep every US dollar spent on aid to the rest of the world here in the US. We use it to pay off our debt and keep a balanced budget. Your part of the deal is to have your country and all other countries take up the MONEY slack to aid the poor of the world.

Unfortunately, our entire foreign aid budget -- even if we stop paying the Secretary of State and the entire department -- would barely cover 10% of next year's budget deficit, much less pay off the $ten trillion or so we already owe.
Originally posted by FactCheck.org:


The entire budget for the State Department and International Programs works out to just $51.3 million.

See the earlier link ...
09/27/2008 10:11:17 PM · #63
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by kenskid:

Hey cpanaiotiI'll gladly make a deal...we keep every US dollar spent on aid to the rest of the world here in the US. We use it to pay off our debt and keep a balanced budget. Your part of the deal is to have your country and all other countries take up the MONEY slack to aid the poor of the world.

Unfortunately, our entire foreign aid budget -- even if we stop paying the Secretary of State and the entire department -- would barely cover 10% of next year's budget deficit, much less pay off the $ten trillion or so we already owe.
Originally posted by FactCheck.org:


The entire budget for the State Department and International Programs works out to just $51.3 million.

See the earlier link ...


Quick question just to make sure I'm understanding. Are you saying that all the US gives in Internatonal aid is 51.3 mill?
09/28/2008 09:37:15 PM · #64
Originally posted by Phil:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by kenskid:

Hey cpanaiotiI'll gladly make a deal...we keep every US dollar spent on aid to the rest of the world here in the US. We use it to pay off our debt and keep a balanced budget. Your part of the deal is to have your country and all other countries take up the MONEY slack to aid the poor of the world.

Unfortunately, our entire foreign aid budget -- even if we stop paying the Secretary of State and the entire department -- would barely cover 10% of next year's budget deficit, much less pay off the $ten trillion or so we already owe.
Originally posted by FactCheck.org:


The entire budget for the State Department and International Programs works out to just $51.3 million.

See the earlier link ...


Quick question just to make sure I'm understanding. Are you saying that all the US gives in Internatonal aid is 51.3 mill?


Hello? Is this thing on?

Check one. Check two.
09/28/2008 10:08:07 PM · #65
Originally posted by kenskid:

Hey cpanaioti

If we're so F'd up as you say can you please tell me why MILLIONS take risks every day to make it to the US legal and Illegal? Can you tell me why thousands upon thousands come here for their higher education?


Millions you say... and every day. Well that certainly explains the rather extensive delays one experiences at the border.

Originally posted by kenskid:

Can you tell me why thousands upon thousands come here for their higher education?


If you took a quick look at the country of origin of a lot of these students, that might explain a lot. One also has to take into consideration that learning English is a definite asset in the business world.

Originally posted by kenskid:

Can you tell me if we're so F'd up why we aid and feed more poor countries than any other in the world?


You might want to revisit this comment, particularly if you factor in the Gross National Index. An interesting read is this one: US Aid & Foreign Assistance

All factors taken into consideration, yes the USA does provide a great deal of assistance to the rest of the world, but do not for a moment believe that they are the sole bearer of this responsibilities.

Ray

Originally posted by kenskidI'll gladly make a deal...we keep every US dollar spent on aid to the rest of the world here in the US. We use it to pay off our debt and keep a balanced budget. Your part of the deal is to have your country and all other countries take up the MONEY slack to aid the poor of the world.

...is it a deal?[/quote:



Sadly, your proposal would not generate sufficient income to balance your budget, particularly at this juncture. Perhaps the choice of words used by cpanaioti was not the best, but I do believe her prime intention was to demonstrate that not all is well. and that even the USA could use some retro-fitting.

Ray

Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by Jaker:

The problem with our two party system is that most of us knew who we were voting for as soon as we had the nominations finalized. Had the nominations been different, it wouldn't have mattered. We are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. Case in point is John Mccain. The Republicans have hated that guy practically his whole career. Many of the things he has done in the past have been widely and vocally thrashed by his own party, yet now he's the guy they want for president. That makes absolutely no sense! But it's a prime example of how the political system in this country is completely broken.

Give me 4 or 5 strong candidates and I'll be able to actually pick the one that I REALLY feel will do the best job. Give me 4 or 5 strong candidates and they may be able to say what they actually think instead of pandering to the ideals of their party. Give me 4 or 5 candidates, and my country won't be ruled by lobbyists and special interests.

Until then, I'm stuck voting for the person I think will F up my country the least, and that sucks.


So you think either one will F up your country? Too late, it's already f^&(%d up. Which one actually has a plan to move the country forward rather than further down the path Bush has taken it?


Message edited by author 2008-09-28 22:17:20.
09/28/2008 11:20:01 PM · #66
Originally posted by RayEthier:

You might want to revisit this comment, particularly if you factor in the Gross National Index. An interesting read is this one: US Aid & Foreign Assistance


Man! 0.16% of GNI. I think we can all pat ourselves on the back for this one people. Good job all around!!! It's nice to know that 16 cents of every $100 we make goes to those who need it. I'm sleeping like a baby because my conscience is clear. It's also great to know that a large portion of that is going to Iraq and Afghanistan to rebuild stuff we likely blew up ourselves.

[/sarcasm]
09/29/2008 02:06:49 AM · #67
Here is what two polls are saying.


09/29/2008 09:41:54 AM · #68
Two moments were telling to me about Obama. The first when he tried to defend 19 billion in earmark spending by comparing it to the war costs. And second when he tried to defend his war stance (anti-war) by ALSO referencing a bracelet he was given - but stumbled on the Sgt's. name - [and now we find out the mother had sent him an email requesting he not wear the bracelet and the divorced father is upset as well]. I thought McCain was not as sharp with some answers as he should have been and was genuinely disappointed in his overall performance. Obama simply confirmed that he is the better politician, consistently following the debate prep to link McCain with Bush at evey opportunity and say words that were voter acceptable - even though his actions/history prove otherwise.

This election like someone posted above is about party platforms. Do you support abortion on demand? Yes - then vote Democratic. Do you support stricter gun control? Yes - then vote Democratic. Do you support more social programs paid for by those that pay taxes? Yes - then vote Democratic. Do you support ending the war in Iraq regardless of the consequence to the country and region? Yes - then vote Democratic. Do you support more unions within the business sector? Yes - then vote Democratic. The candidates are sencondary and simply give those complaining something to find fault with. There is a clear distinction between what kinds of judges will be appointed and what kind of society America will reflect - depending on whether the Democrats or Republicans take the White House. The individual candidates are really beside the point.
09/29/2008 10:01:40 AM · #69
Originally posted by Flash:


This election like someone posted above is about party platforms. Do you support abortion on demand? Yes - then vote Democratic. Do you support stricter gun control? Yes - then vote Democratic. Do you support more social programs paid for by those that pay taxes? Yes - then vote Democratic. Do you support ending the war in Iraq regardless of the consequence to the country and region? Yes - then vote Democratic. Do you support more unions within the business sector? Yes - then vote Democratic. The candidates are sencondary and simply give those complaining something to find fault with. There is a clear distinction between what kinds of judges will be appointed and what kind of society America will reflect - depending on whether the Democrats or Republicans take the White House. The individual candidates are really beside the point.


Do you support the Government telling women what to do with their bodies? - Vote Republican. Do you support guns in schools - Vote Republican. Do you think the poor and middle class should be left to die in hard times? - Vote Republican. Do you support wasting trillions of dollars invading foreign countries, destroying their cities and killing their citizens to make profit for the President's buddies? - Vote Republican. Do you support shipping jobs overseas and compromising our manufacturing and technological capabilities? - Vote Republican. Do you think the work men do is worth more than the same work done by a woman? - Vote Republican.

Message edited by author 2008-09-29 10:07:53.
09/29/2008 10:02:19 AM · #70
Originally posted by Prash:

Here is what two polls are saying.


Just in case the page gets displaced, here is the exact quote of the first few lines from the above link:

"Obama Bested McCain 48%-34% in 1st Election Debate, Poll Shows

By Nadine Elsibai

Sept. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Viewers of the first presidential debate said Barack Obama did the better job during the event two nights ago, with 48 percent choosing the Democratic candidate compared with 34 percent for his Republican rival John McCain, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll."

09/29/2008 10:10:37 AM · #71
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Do you support wasting trillions of dollars invading foreign countries, destroying their cities and killing their citizens to make profit for the President's buddies? - Vote Republican.


You mean the dollars approved by the Democratic congress.

09/29/2008 10:30:58 AM · #72
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Do you support wasting trillions of dollars invading foreign countries, destroying their cities and killing their citizens to make profit for the President's buddies? - Vote Republican.


You mean the dollars approved by the Democratic congress.


Yes, the Democratic congress that was lied to by the Republican Administration. The same Republican administration who sold the war as a $50B endeavor.
09/29/2008 11:10:05 AM · #73
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Do you support wasting trillions of dollars invading foreign countries, destroying their cities and killing their citizens to make profit for the President's buddies? - Vote Republican.


You mean the dollars approved by the Democratic congress.


Yes, the Democratic congress that was lied to by the Republican Administration. The same Republican administration who sold the war as a $50B endeavor.


If the Democrats were/are that gullible and inefficient at checking their facts, then perhaps that says even more about them. Or - they were/are not gullible and did check their facts - in which case it means the blame you so eagerly place on the President belongs a bit wider spread.

Regardless, to paint democrats as the "victim" only emphasizes one of their most consistent characteristics. They are always the victim. They are "owed" something for nothing, not responsible for their actions (votes) and anyone who thinks otherwise or expects them to be accountable - is a heartless facist.

edit to add I think your exact term was "jack booted facist".

Message edited by author 2008-09-29 11:11:36.
09/29/2008 11:28:10 AM · #74
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Do you support wasting trillions of dollars invading foreign countries, destroying their cities and killing their citizens to make profit for the President's buddies? - Vote Republican.


You mean the dollars approved by the Democratic congress.


Yes, the Democratic congress that was lied to by the Republican Administration. The same Republican administration who sold the war as a $50B endeavor.


If the Democrats were/are that gullible and inefficient at checking their facts, then perhaps that says even more about them. Or - they were/are not gullible and did check their facts - in which case it means the blame you so eagerly place on the President belongs a bit wider spread.

Regardless, to paint democrats as the "victim" only emphasizes one of their most consistent characteristics. They are always the victim. They are "owed" something for nothing, not responsible for their actions (votes) and anyone who thinks otherwise or expects them to be accountable - is a heartless facist.

edit to add I think your exact term was "jack booted facist".


No, the fact is that the source of information was the CIA, augmented to the degree it supported the administration's case for war by information from other intel agencies. The "facts" were politically spun to support the war. They were then presented as objective when they were anything but.

You're right, the blame does not fall solely on the president. It's beyond the capability of one man, even if that man is the president. His administration shares heartily in the blame; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice et.al. were all complicit in the deception.
09/29/2008 11:30:29 AM · #75
Ah, another back and forth thread showing how divided we are !
Most of you have heard of

THIS Happiest Places to Live Study â€Â¦

but I find it interesting because of the criteria they use to measure happiness and I thought it might be appropriate to post it here.

Originally posted by kenskid:

So then EVEN better...my country BORROWS money and then aids the world ! What a bunch of Saps we are !
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 02:33:01 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 02:33:01 AM EDT.