On September 25 2008 12:17 crabapple wrote: seriously, platforms nowadays mean shit.
bush said no nation building etc etc. but i guess if ur pretty up there in a a secret society an u have the New World Order as your agenda, then i guess you really don't give a shit as long as you win. cause your agenda is to tear the constitution to pieces and put the world under fascist dictatorship under the pope. =/
On September 25 2008 11:19 aRod wrote: I knew McCain was known for dropping the F bomb. I read about it being use on Cornyn and Grassley in the past. Not that there's anything wrong with the F bomb, but can you find that video link?
this is the candidate, unbelievable
As much as I hate to believe it, that's actually fake. Although I'm pretty sure there's another video of him cussing out some random reporter somewhere.
Interesting news this morning. McCain's idea of suspending his campaign apparently doesn't stop his chief advisors from going on Fox News to bash Obama, nor has it stopped him from running attack ads all around the country.
Interesting definition he seems to have of "country first".
On September 26 2008 00:09 Clutch3 wrote: Interesting news this morning. McCain's idea of suspending his campaign apparently doesn't stop his chief advisors from going on Fox News to bash Obama, nor has it stopped him from running attack ads all around the country.
Interesting definition he seems to have of "country first".
They are both here to win an election right now and both will say anything to do it... Personally I don't like either guy and the fact that a country with 350 million or so people has only 2 legitimate parties is fucking ridiculous.
On September 25 2008 00:56 fusionsdf wrote: fuck all this politics bullshit
mccain is going to continue the Iraq war mccain is going to cut taxes for all groups mccain is going to continue the bush tax cuts The economy is in bad shape and is requiring money from the government the US has a record debt
where the fuck is he going to get the money?
also, someone supporting mccain please address this
There is not many of us here so I am taking up the slack.
I'm guessing he will have the money because he is not instituting a nationwide health care system like Obama is. In fact, Obama' s plans were so big, that he just announced that due to the cost of the upcoming bailout, he will probably have to scale back his promises.
If you want to talk about something expensive, you have to look at health care. if the Gov't starts paying it, that is a buttload of money that has to come from somewhere.
These are my thoughts anyway.
The answer is that he won't have the money to do it. Greenspan (lifelong R as well) has said it and the "300 economists" that support McCain was a farce.
And for those who missed it
From Yesterday: In an exclusive interview he told Tom Beres,"I have not had a chance to see it in writing. I have to examine it."
But he listed the factors he considers most important.
He wants oversight to be shared among a variety of financial minds.
"We need people like Warren Buffet, Michael Bloomberg and Mitt Romney. We cannot concentrate responsibility in the hands of one person," he said.
He insisted the deal must be "effective and transparent" and not reward Wall Street executives at the expense of homeowners and taxpayers.
Kind of gives you a clue why he needs to delay the debates.
On September 25 2008 10:12 aRod wrote: Savio the difference between the videos you posted and the video Stealth posted is Stealth's video is the vice presidential candidate while your examples are people not directly involved with Obama's campaign. Don't you think this is an important distinction? Perhaps yet another example of what I've been saying all along.
The main point I was trying to make is that I do not give much credence when reporters demand specifics without allowing preparation or thinking time on live television because I think it is a political tool designed to embarrass the person you are interviewing.
You have a point that candidates should be held to a higher standard than other people, However, it made me wonder who should be expected to know more about their candidates accomplishments--a governor for whom McCains legislative actions have mattered for a few weeks (but who is directly responsible for knowing them now) or a fellow senator and colleague who has worked along side Obama for the last several years (but who is not directly responsible for knowing Obamas accomplishments).
In defense of both of them, I don't think that anyone would argue that, if given preparation time, could answer those questions fully. Obviously Obama DOES have accomplishments, and obviously McCain DOES have instances of working across the aisle that can be pointed out.
That they couldn't state them while put on the spot on live television means nothing in my opinion. It just means their respective journalists were trying to embarrass them.
On September 25 2008 11:19 aRod wrote: I knew McCain was known for dropping the F bomb. I read about it being use on Cornyn and Grassley in the past. Not that there's anything wrong with the F bomb, but can you find that video link?
Lol, he definitely went wild on Cornyn, but there is no video of it, just transcripts I believe.
His temperment actually contributed (among a few other things) to me voting for someone else during the GOP primary. I support him now, but he wasn't my first choice, partly because of his temper.
While there is nothing wrong with cussing etc. its a little weird to hear a candidate for the highest office in the world talking like an angry high school student who reverts to cussing for lack of communication skills.
So, even supporters like me can see some of his imperfections.
In an exclusive interview he told Tom Beres,"I have not had a chance to see it in writing. I have to examine it."
But he listed the factors he considers most important.
He wants oversight to be shared among a variety of financial minds.
"We need people like Warren Buffet, Michael Bloomberg and Mitt Romney. We cannot concentrate responsibility in the hands of one person," he said.
He insisted the deal must be "effective and transparent" and not reward Wall Street executives at the expense of homeowners and taxpayers.
Lots of people wonder at times if Obama regrets not having chosen Clinton for #2. But sometimes, I wonder if McCain regrets not choosing Romney. Romney definately had his drawbacks. He was easy to attack on several points including being worth $500 million, but Romney is a financial genius and was GRILLED by hard interviews both when he ran and then as he was supporting McCain (trying to be VP) and never faltered the way many say Palin has.
Romney might have been useful with this financial trouble now.
Of course having 2 rich white guys doesn't look good either, so I guess we'll never know.
On September 25 2008 10:12 aRod wrote: Savio the difference between the videos you posted and the video Stealth posted is Stealth's video is the vice presidential candidate while your examples are people not directly involved with Obama's campaign. Don't you think this is an important distinction? Perhaps yet another example of what I've been saying all along.
The main point I was trying to make is that I do not give much credence when reporters demand specifics without allowing preparation or thinking time on live television because I think it is a political tool designed to embarrass the person you are interviewing.
You have a point that candidates should be held to a higher standard than other people, However, it made me wonder who should be expected to know more about their candidates accomplishments--a governor for whom McCains legislative actions have mattered for a few weeks (but who is directly responsible for knowing them now) or a fellow senator and colleague who has worked along side Obama for the last several years (but who is not directly responsible for knowing Obamas accomplishments).
In defense of both of them, I don't think that anyone would argue that, if given preparation time, could answer those questions fully. Obviously Obama DOES have accomplishments, and obviously McCain DOES have instances of working across the aisle that can be pointed out.
That they couldn't state them while put on the spot on live television means nothing in my opinion. It just means their respective journalists were trying to embarrass them.
Surely you aren't referring to a state senator of Texas as a fellow senator of Obama that has worked beside him for several years...
On September 25 2008 10:12 aRod wrote: Savio the difference between the videos you posted and the video Stealth posted is Stealth's video is the vice presidential candidate while your examples are people not directly involved with Obama's campaign. Don't you think this is an important distinction? Perhaps yet another example of what I've been saying all along.
The main point I was trying to make is that I do not give much credence when reporters demand specifics without allowing preparation or thinking time on live television because I think it is a political tool designed to embarrass the person you are interviewing.
You have a point that candidates should be held to a higher standard than other people, However, it made me wonder who should be expected to know more about their candidates accomplishments--a governor for whom McCains legislative actions have mattered for a few weeks (but who is directly responsible for knowing them now) or a fellow senator and colleague who has worked along side Obama for the last several years (but who is not directly responsible for knowing Obamas accomplishments).
In defense of both of them, I don't think that anyone would argue that, if given preparation time, could answer those questions fully. Obviously Obama DOES have accomplishments, and obviously McCain DOES have instances of working across the aisle that can be pointed out.
That they couldn't state them while put on the spot on live television means nothing in my opinion. It just means their respective journalists were trying to embarrass them.
Surely you aren't referring to a state senator of Texas as a fellow senator of Obama.
Oops, I may have to watch that again. Yesterday I only heard the word senator and came to the wrong conclusion.
But even if it had been Biden or a campaign employee, I still would say that it doesn't matter because these little "gaffes" in my opinion are not the substance of an election.
This is why I have not been posting Biden's recent gaffes which have been in the news recently.
As a side note, Savio deserves a medal for consistently making his points in a level, reasonable manner. That's not something you typically find at TL.
edit: And on the Palin conversation: I agree that there is an element of 'gotcha' journalism at work that isn't necessarily fair to the interviewee. But at the same time, Palin is going to have to learn how to throw some substance into her responses or else the Palin doesn't know anything narrative is going to gain more and more traction in the media and she'll never recover. Her interview up above is part of a larger picture being painted that she isn't doing anything to help.
Like I wrote before, I think that is one of the best political discussions I have had over the internet (where anonymity brings out the worst in people) because, even though I am in a small minority in terms of my opinions, there has actually been a very small amount of flaming.
Can you imagine a discussion like this popping up the the "official SC2 boards"? That would be disaster of a thread!
Please take the time to watch this video of Palin's foreign policy discussion with Couric. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Maybe if it were an Adam Sandler movie I'd feel better.
Its hard for me to argue that she doesn't sound and look unsure of herself during her press interviews. That is no doubt the downside of the Palin choice that McCain made. She generated a bunch of interest in his campaign and motivated the base better than his other options would have, but she doesn't bear herself well under the pressure of an interview.
Also, in fairness to Obama (since earlier, I drew comparisons to their amount of experience), I have noticed that Obama has never faltered during a high pressure interview. I watch part of his interview with O'Reilly and he was really grilling him on his "associations". It was high pressure, but I think Obama looked strong during the process.
It does seem to me that McCain has been pretty "ballsy" during this campaign. Obama made what you could call a standard VP pick, wanted the traditional style and number of debates. While McCain definately made the "risky" VP pick. Bigger payoff if it works, but a disaster if it doesn't (we'll know in Nov). He also wanted to have 10 debates rather than 3 and wanted to have them in a risky "townhall" format where the candidates can confront eachother under less moderation, and most recently, he did the whole "suspend the campaign thing" which again, could be very good, but could also be a disaster.
I think its because he knew that if everything in this campaign stayed standard, the republican would lose (thats how much trouble our party is in).
On September 26 2008 00:09 Clutch3 wrote: Interesting news this morning. McCain's idea of suspending his campaign apparently doesn't stop his chief advisors from going on Fox News to bash Obama, nor has it stopped him from running attack ads all around the country.
Interesting definition he seems to have of "country first".
They are both here to win an election right now and both will say anything to do it... Personally I don't like either guy and the fact that a country with 350 million or so people has only 2 legitimate parties is fucking ridiculous.
so true. agree 110% Can't trust anyone running for office. Reminds me of the south park episode... giant douche vs. turd sandwich.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/files/articles/foilhats_400.jpg)
There is not many of us here so I am taking up the slack.
