Obama / McCain Presidential Debate from Mississippi - 9/26/08

no way did obama blow him out of the water

Yeah, McCain did pretty good. I think Obama got caught on his flip-flopping a few times.

It was quite close in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billionfold

He's a man I can look at and say,
"This guy will take care of me."

---

Sorry but I don't need ANY of these assclowns to take care of me. The Presidents main job is commander-in-chief of the armed forces; unless your in the military you should consider somebody else to take care of you.

As for the debate...close but I'll give this one to McCain. Right after he brought up Obama's earmarks there was a bunch of uhhh, ummm, stammering going on. I think that's one of the main reasons why McCain laughed so much at Obama's responses. He had the dude on the ropes after the first half hour.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

The Presidents main job is commander-in-chief of the armed forces

---

wrong, at least not complete. this is indeed a misconception.

he is main command of the whole executive branch. otherwise we would only have warmongers or military people up there not politicians or law school graduate, neither businessmen or other known public figures.

he is commander in chief of all armed forces but that is not his "main job"

he is in part with congress running this country as a whole.

here is a better explanation

Quote:

---

The president is not only commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but also swears to uphold and to protect the Constitution of the United States. He (or she) has the power to pardon criminal offenses, as well as the power of appointment of judges, ambassadors and other officers, with the â??advice and consentâ??â?? of the Senate, and the power to make treaties with other nations.

---

President of the United States: Job description: The Swamp

and even by being commander in chief of all armed forces, "taking care of citizens" still applies

wrongful wars and lies, are not any part of protecting or representing Americans. they only hurt us in the long run. Thus I rather agree with billionfold, a person who is willing to pursue dialogue and diplomacy, and perhaps exhaust this option before involving the nation and our soldiers and children in another war (wrongful or not), is a better choice for president and can certainly take a better care of his people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billionfold

The main difference I see in McCain and Obama, is that Obama really seems eager to be our leader. He's a man I can look at and say,
"This guy will take care of me."

I don't see that in McCain, not at all.

---

I dont think taking the American flag off and keeping ur hands behind ur back during the pledge an natl anthem shows eagerness to be our leader. And he offers no solutions to problems he just acknowledges the problems exist. He likes to say hes cutting taxes for 95% of americans... well A. id like to see his math and see how he comes up with that figure and B. Hes raising taxes in other areas. No one will buy stocks when the capital gains tax is 30% and a 50% death tax....WHATTTTTTT??? so let me get this strait obama you want 50% my inheritance when my mom dies? has that money not already been taxed...ppl need to wake up and stop getting lost in obamas "smooth" talkin. HE IS A MORON!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeefsMyFav

I dont think taking the American flag off and keeping ur hands behind ur back during the pledge an natl anthem shows eagerness to be our leader.

---

if those things are your standard to measure eagerness to lead the country with, i have 2 words for u: "good luck":rastasmoke:

I thought it was a decent debate --- stuck mostly to issues, pretty good job on both sides, but no real knockout punches.

If you want to call it a tie, then in a lot of ways if works out in Obama's favor in terms of how it affects the election. Here's why: Obama is leading in the polls, so a tie allows him to keep his position --- McCain is trailing, so he needed a clear win to change the trend, and he did not get it. The main topic was foreign policy, which is percieved as being McCain's strength, so the fact that Obama held his own allows undecided voters who may have been concerned about that area to see Obama as beeing more credible than they might have thought. Also the next few debates are not about foreign policy, so Obama may get more of an advantage in the next few. Holding his own in his least-strong area gives Obama some advantage going into the domestic policy debates where he is stronger.

And that advantage holds if you think it is a tie --- I actually think Obama did better. Many polls also showed people thinking Obama had done better. Obama looked more poised, confident, calm and presidential to me. McCain looked wound up, tense and angry sometimes. McCain would not look Obama in the eye or even turn to face him, even when Obama was talking dierectly to him and the moderator was encouraging them to engage directly --- that was wierd. In normal conversation that comes off as rude, and in a confrontation it is what people do when they are trying to slide out of a fight. That was bad body language on McCain's part --- it looked rude and cowardly.

McCain came off as condescending at times, like an old man lecturing "junior" about something --- always saying, "Barack Obama does not understand." I thought Obama did a bettter job of sticking to facts and rational policy points and keeping away from the BS. McCain resorted to his stump-speech style BS attacks more often --- things like, "He wants to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions," or "Obama said he would attack Pakistan."

That kind of stuff might work in a stump speech when you are talking to your supporters, but not with a mixed audience when the other guy is standing right there with equal time to make his case. When McCain said, "Barack Obama does not understand," and Obama is standing right there and shows he does understand, it made it seem like McCain was condescending and full of shit.

When McCain said things like, "Obama wants to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions," and Obama makes a good case that he won't concede anything to rogue regimes, but you can't have a negotiation by insisting the other side meet all your demands before you will agree to negotiate with them, then it made McCain seem simpleminded and full of shit.

When McCain said something like, "Obama said he would attack Pakistan." And Obama made the case that he would not attack Pakistan, but if he had Osama Bin Laden in his sights in Pakistan, and the Pakistanis could not or would not take him out, then we would take him out. Then it made McCain seem like either he would not take out Bin Laden, or he was full of shit again.

McCain should keep the BS for the stump speeches, because each time he pulled a cheap shot like that in the debate, Obama made him look foolish or full of shit. Obama avoided the BS cheap shots. obama has some BS cheap shots that he uses in his stump speeches, like McCain's doesn't-know-how-many-houses gaffe, but he kept that crap out of the debate, which was wise and made him seem more presidential. McCain should learn to do that too, and learn to look a man in the eye.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billionfold

Obviously we have two very different definitions of what our president should be. :stoned:

You're such a closeted republican. ;)

You remind me so much of my uncle.

Claims to be independent, yet is as far right as it gets. :stoned:

---

Oh yes, I'm SOOOO far right. I have voted for R. Perot and B. Clinton in the past; didn't realize that they were both republicans. I think when your as far left as it gets, the middle of the road seems very far right to some.

Government is suppose to make it easier for me to take care of myself; I don't need or want daddy President taking care of me. The more they "do" for you the more they want to be involved in your life....just like a parent. "Don't drink this...don't smoke that."

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flyingimam

wrong, at least not complete. this is indeed a misconception.

he is main command of the whole executive branch. otherwise we would only have warmongers or military people up there not politicians or law school graduate, neither businessmen or other known public figures.

---

Anybody that can send our young people out to die without approval from any other branch...well, I feel that this IS their main job. As for the "politicians or law school graduates....that's what is wrong with Washington today. You just described 3/4 of the crooks there right now.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Anybody that can send our young people out to die without approval from any other branch...well, I feel that this IS their main job. As for the "politicians or law school graduates....that's what is wrong with Washington today. You just described 3/4 of the crooks there right now.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

i feel ya. but technically the president is also responsible for upholding the constitution and protecting it. the current one has literally amended it using this patriot act and other similar measures.

but true, the perception is that he can send our troops out and he is mostly called the commander in chief in many places.

but why the heck in the first place, we need to be sending our troops out so much that this has become the main role of a US prez. I bet this wasnt how it was intended when they were writing the constitution.

it gives me a feeling that we as a government and nation just love what we do, push others to do what we say or we beat the hell out of them... now only the last 2 wars (current ones) are the ones supposedly in "self-defense"

one is an illegitimate preemptive aggression for defense (whatever that means) with those very dangerous threats never found

our last war in self-defense was WW II and that was the last war we have actually had declared.

I mean we worship our constitution, maybe we should amend it in some way. cuz the way it is we get 4 year term potential dictators whom no1 can do shit about once they are there. not the congress (they hardly ever do anything in unity) and especially not the people.

i donno, its just that something aint right with this part of the constitution which allows this executive power to send troops without any1's approval but the president's him or herself. this has happened a good number of times in the last 60 years or so... many instances with little or no good use for the country... what did we exactly gain in vietnam? or korea?

both remain communist states, one remains a very secretive and cold enemy.

we just got killed and killed and some made some fortunes in this between. without communism going away for good or without those countries even being freed

I'm ramblin i know. i stop right here.