The Official Presidential Debate Thread (Round 2)

[firstdown]

This is a very good read. Sorry that was not such a good read. Edit

[saden1]

Making shit up and passing opinions off as if they are facts is in style again eh? Weak!

I'd like to up the ante and blame the founders for this housing mess.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

Making shit up and passing opinions off as if they are facts is in style again eh? Weak!

I'd like to up the ante and blame the founders for this housing mess.

What are you talking about? How am I passing an opinion off as fact?

[saden1]

I would also like to add that if we use "he didn't introduce X legislation" to make decision about candidates fitness and ability to follow through promises then you hamper a candidates ability to propose any new ideas and the potential for progress in general.

Now if you want to use his voting record to support your argument then I'm with you. He voted for taxes increases or he voted against reducing taxes are all valid arguments to base your decision on.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

I would also like to add that in if we use "he didn't introduce X legislation" to make decision about candidates fitness and ability to follow through promises then you hamper a candidates ability to propose any new ideas and the potential for progress in general.

Now if you want to use his voting record to support your argument then I'm with you. He voted for taxes increases or he voted against reducing taxes are all valid arguments to base your decision on.

Your first paragraph makes no sense at all. Has he ever introduced a bill and had it passed?

[BleedBurgundy]

and why is it everyone believes in Darwinism but not when it comes to the economy?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

and why is it everyone believes in Darwinism but not when it comes to the economy?

Are you referring to perverse version of Darwinism?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by saden1

Are you referring to perverse version of Darwinism?

cute. yes, social Darwinism.

[firstdown]

Ok, I did some checking and Obama has only two Bill that he has authored in his three year that have been voted into law and these are some real important laws at that.

S. 2125, A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
S. 3757, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, Illinois, as the "Katherine Dunham Post Office Building."

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Ok, I did some checking and Obama has only two Bill that he has authored in his three year that have been voted into law and these are some real important laws at that.

S. 2125, A bill to promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
S. 3757, A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 950 Missouri Avenue in East St. Louis, Illinois, as the "Katherine Dunham Post Office Building."

Where did you get this info? Link? What was wrong with the Library of Congress? Worked fine for me. Lots of bills, many of them--like all bills--co-sponsored.

No party in power can survive this kind of economic meltdown. Not sure what else is relevant, I'm afraid, for good or ill.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

Where did you get this info? Link? What was wrong with the Library of Congress? Worked fine for me. Lots of bills, many of them--like all bills--co-sponsored.

No party in power can survive this kind of economic meltdown. Not sure what else is relevant, I'm afraid, for good or ill.

Yes Obama did sponsor a bunch of bills but that is when someone else writes the bill and you sponsor the bill. He has only been the author of 5 bills and could only get 2 passed. One changing he name of a post office and the other was to support some small country. I guess by getting the name changed of a post office is what he means by real change. We can now start calling him the post master. It seems he cannot get his bills passed but he can surly pork them up.

[JWsleep]

Again, what is your source on who wrote what? Not that I doubt your claim, I'd just like to check that out.

Btw, do you really think these Senators write the bills? Their staffs do it, I'd guess. The legislative process is generally about consensus and bargaining. That's why 99% (my guess) of bills are co-sponsored. You get behind an idea, get your allies together, and make the deals that lead to passage. Given that Obama has done lots of this, given his large number of co-sponsored bills, he seems to be a good, if young Senator. The real way to judge these guys, when looking at their Senatorial records, is do you agree with the legislation they support? My guess is you don't. Great. That's a good reason to vote against him.

I actually like John Mc.'s senate record on lots of things: election reform and immigration, to name a few. But in his run to capture the republican base, he's had to repudiate all that. Further, his campaign's embrace of Rove operatives and their "call your opponent a terrorist or anti-american or worse" approach to elections is a 180 turn from his approach and attitudes after 2000. And Palin strikes me as a very bad VP choice, cynically chosen. So the Senate record gets counter-balanced by this stuff. McC's leadership decisions IN THE CAMPAIGN have been woeful, IMO. Go back to the Senate, John. We could use you there.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

Again, what is your source on who wrote what? Not that I doubt your claim, I'd just like to check that out.

Btw, do you really think these Senators write the bills? Their staffs do it, I'd guess. The legislative process is generally about consensus and bargaining. That's why 99% (my guess) of bills are co-sponsored. You get behind an idea, get your allies together, and make the deals that lead to passage. Given that Obama has done lots of this, given his large number of co-sponsored bills, he seems to be a good, if young Senator. The real way to judge these guys, when looking at their Senatorial records, is do you agree with the legislation they support? My guess is you don't. Great. That's a good reason to vote against him.

I actually like John Mc.'s senate record on lots of things: election reform and immigration, to name a few. But in his run to capture the republican base, he's had to repudiate all that. Further, his campaign's embrace of Rove operatives and their "call your opponent a terrorist or anti-american or worse" approach to elections is a 180 turn from his approach and attitudes after 2000. And Palin strikes me as a very bad VP choice, cynically chosen. So the Senate record gets counter-balanced by this stuff. McC's leadership decisions IN THE CAMPAIGN have been woeful, IMO. Go back to the Senate, John. We could use you there.

I'll have to look up the source but I don't have time today.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

Again, what is your source on who wrote what? Not that I doubt your claim, I'd just like to check that out.

Btw, do you really think these Senators write the bills? Their staffs do it, I'd guess. The legislative process is generally about consensus and bargaining. That's why 99% (my guess) of bills are co-sponsored. You get behind an idea, get your allies together, and make the deals that lead to passage. Given that Obama has done lots of this, given his large number of co-sponsored bills, he seems to be a good, if young Senator. The real way to judge these guys, when looking at their Senatorial records, is do you agree with the legislation they support? My guess is you don't. Great. That's a good reason to vote against him.

I actually like John Mc.'s senate record on lots of things: election reform and immigration, to name a few. But in his run to capture the republican base, he's had to repudiate all that. Further, his campaign's embrace of Rove operatives and their "call your opponent a terrorist or anti-american or worse" approach to elections is a 180 turn from his approach and attitudes after 2000. And Palin strikes me as a very bad VP choice, cynically chosen. So the Senate record gets counter-balanced by this stuff. McC's leadership decisions IN THE CAMPAIGN have been woeful, IMO. Go back to the Senate, John. We could use you there.

Who has called anyone a terrorist or antii american? They brought up Ayers who's house Obama kick off his political career and is a known terrorist. No one should question Obama's lack of judgement in doing so? He then attends this curch where the guy say "God Dam Americia" for 20 some years and by Obama's own words said he was a close friend who also married him. These are not people in his distant past but people he associated with in recent years. If this was Sarah or McCain it would be all over the news but they seem to turn a blind eye. When Sarah was named VP the press was out in full force trying to dig up dirt on her but they seem to ignor the guy's past who is running for president of the US. Just look at the lack of news or the small mention of the kid who hacked into Sarah's web site. If this was a a Rep. from Tenn. and not a Dem from Tenn it would have been all over the news. Also on Both occasions Obama has lied about his association with both Ayer's and Wright and he blows it off as a casual relationship when it was much more than that.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

I actually like John Mc.'s senate record on lots of things: election reform and immigration, to name a few. But in his run to capture the republican base, he's had to repudiate all that. Further, his campaign's embrace of Rove operatives and their "call your opponent a terrorist or anti-american or worse" approach to elections is a 180 turn from his approach and attitudes after 2000. And Palin strikes me as a very bad VP choice, cynically chosen. So the Senate record gets counter-balanced by this stuff. McC's leadership decisions IN THE CAMPAIGN have been woeful, IMO. Go back to the Senate, John. We could use you there.

My suspicion, based on observation and things I've heard and read, is that McCain is extremely frustrated with the campaign and he's become really a bit player in his own campaign. I remember seeing an interview with his campaign manager who said (paraphrasing) "When we ran things above water, no paid any attention to us. The only way for us to get people to listen to our ideas is to first grab their attention by going on the attack" Hence, the negative ads.

Then you have the whole Palin situation, who by every indication was a choice forced upon him.

Finally, I think just the competitor in him is realizing that his last chance at the Presidency is slipping away. What's worse for him, I'm sure, is that some "punk kid" is going to be President. By that I mean that in his mind he's probably thinking "I served in Vietnam, I was a POW, I've served in the Senate for over 20 years, I've run for President before; and now I'm finally on the verge of being President of the United States (in my last opportunity) and this guy with hardly any experience running his first ever Presidential campaign is about to beat me?!"

All that is making him, in my mind, look almost depressed when he's out there at campaign rallies. Like he's lost complete control.

But also, his value (as you point out) might simply be as a Senator. It's like a coordinator who can excel there but doesn't have those intangible qualities to be a head coach.