EPTHes on the road to victory, anything that doesnt stray him from this path = win
2008 US Presidential Election - Page 75
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
Hes on the road to victory, anything that doesnt stray him from this path = win | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On September 27 2008 21:13 Jibba wrote: The Nixon vs. Kennedy comparisons may be more relevant than ever, at least in terms of the debates. Perhaps, but I listened to the debate rather than watched and I don't think 'Nixon' won this one. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 27 2008 23:34 Mindcrime wrote: Perhaps, but I listened to the debate rather than watched and I don't think 'Nixon' won this one. Fair enough, but watching McCain was definitely worse than listening to McCain. He didn't look at Obama a single time and he had a scowl on his face whenever Obama was speaking. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32157 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
ouch | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
“Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused…” “He’s also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these…requests…” “John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right…” “John is right we have to make cuts…” “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families…” “John — you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say…” “Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran…” --Barack Obama and don't forget the MOST memorable: "I have a bracelet too." --Barack Obama | ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On September 28 2008 01:28 Savio wrote: “I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility…” “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused…” “He’s also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these…requests…” “John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right…” “John is right we have to make cuts…” “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families…” “John — you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say…” “Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran…” --Barack Obama and don't forget the MOST memorable: "I have a bracelet too." --Barack Obama strange how like 3 or 4 focus polls all gave the night to Obama, hmmmm? go look at the fox focus poll above lol you can say all the republican talking points you want, but independants went strongly for obama after the debate | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On September 28 2008 01:31 fusionsdf wrote: strange how like 3 or 4 focus polls all gave the night to Obama, hmmmm? go look at the fox focus poll above lol you can say all the republican talking points you want, but independants went strongly for obama after the debate Actually it will be interesting how things turn out. The polls after the Gore/Bush debates showed Gore winning 2 out of 3, but during the debates, Bush moved from a few point deficit to being several points ahead. Lets watch the polls and see what happens. If they don't start changing soon, I don't see how McCain can win. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
Interesting. I wonder if, or when, Israel will attack Iran...and what the consequences will be. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
pooper-scooper
United States3108 Posts
On September 27 2008 17:01 a-game wrote: he wasn't referring to internet polls, there was a CNN poll and another poll (by CBS or MSNBC or someone like that) http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/poll-both-men-beat-expectations-but-obama-had-the-edge/?eref=politicalflipper I'm an Obama supporter, but you've got to read a little closer there: "The sample of debate-watchers in this poll were 41 percent Democratic and 27 percent Republican." That doesn't seem to be a particularly balanced poll. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On September 28 2008 01:28 Savio wrote: “I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility…” “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused…” “He’s also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these…requests…” “John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right…” “John is right we have to make cuts…” “Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families…” “John — you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say…” “Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran…” --Barack Obama and don't forget the MOST memorable: "I have a bracelet too." --Barack Obama I think that pointing out where there is agreement is going to appeal to more people than being a confrontational douchebag at every opportunity. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On September 28 2008 02:15 Jibba wrote: I don't think they can. Obviously they can make the decision to, but Israel is not strong enough to win that conflict and it's questionable whether they can inflict the same kind of damage that they did to Iraq in the 80s. Our airforce could do it, and the Israelis would like us to, but I think it'd be a disaster and we'd just stir up trouble elsewhere. I'm not so sure about that. Israel just made large purchase of "bunker buster" bombs from the United States. Several of the components of Iran's nuclear program are in underground fortified bunkers. The article states that Bush said no, because he didn't think that Israel had enough power to wipe out the whole nuclear program in one fell swoop and if it had to be done over a few days, that could lead to much more serious military confrontation. But after he said no, Israel performed a large scale aerial practice exercise over distances equal to what they would have to do to hit all of Iran's targets. I would be very surprised if Israel sat back and allowed Iran to develop nukes. At some point, they may decide to act without the approval of the US--they have done that in the past. Or maybe after the election, Bush will clear it to happen in his final days when there is no political price. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Iran getting nukes really is not a game changer. It wouldn't surprise me either if Israel decided to act, but their politicians are even bigger warhawks than McCain. TBH, a regime change in Israel would be great for the rest of the world. If foreigners think our Democrats and Republicans are conservative, the choice is much worse in Israel. Watch Russia become more active if Israel does do something. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On September 28 2008 02:58 Jibba wrote: Iran getting nukes really is not a game changer.. It is definitly. First Saoudi Arabia will want its own nuke. Moreover there will be no more way to put pressure on Iran. " WHut economic sanctions ? Remember whe have the nuke ! " Then we will end up with the same situation than in North Korea. We will have to pay them to not have more troubles. Best solution is probably negociations but if it fails ... Israel will do the dirty business for us. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On September 27 2008 16:15 Flaccid wrote: And this thread was going great until mahnini showed up. why? because i don't follow obama blindly just because he stands for "change"? obama's economic policies make zero sense and it was nearly transparent in the debate. when he talks about funding alternative energy investments, providing universal healthcare, and STILL cutting tax? where is he going to get the money for all of this? he's going to magically fix loopholes which will provide us enough money duhhhhhh! oh, but he's going to pull out of iraq right? that's where he'll get the money, of course! oh wait, obama still wants to stabilize afghanistan which means it won't necessarily mean he will have less war spending, just war spending in a different country. furthermore, this whole alternative energy crap won't do jack shit to help the economy, much less in the long run. and universal healthcare is retarded if you want to be CUTTING taxes. DISREGARD ALL THE ABOVE MIDDLE/WORKER CLASS AND TAX CUTS FUCK YEAH. ALSO, CHANGE. CHANGE! | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On September 28 2008 05:07 Jibba wrote: Why don't you think alternative energy will help the economy? On the long term it might be a good thing, but nuclear power plants / oil are still way more cheaper. Btw is Obama for nuclear power plants too ? I missed this part of the debate. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On September 28 2008 04:53 mahnini wrote: why? because i don't follow obama blindly just because he stands for "change"? obama's economic policies make zero sense and it was nearly transparent in the debate. when he talks about funding alternative energy investments, providing universal healthcare, and STILL cutting tax? where is he going to get the money for all of this? he's going to magically fix loopholes which will provide us enough money duhhhhhh! Alternative energy is not supposed to be a short term fix. It's a long term necessity for the economy and energy itself. The economic problems of a lack of alternative energy are apparent right now. There actually might be a small amount of benefit to alternative energy funding in the short term, actually. Widespread investments in alternative energy has led to a drop in gas prices in the past. Universal healthcare should be something that costs less money. We could provide universal health care and spend less than we do now. He will be cutting tax for most Americans, however the removal of the Bush tax cuts for the top earners will lead to a net increase in tax revenue... Speaking about your last sarcastic comment, there really is no reason why it could not happen. E.g., on taxes, Obama's plan (perhaps I should not credit him, because it was his team who made it, and it is already done in other countries) for tax returns would save a substantial amount of money that the IRS has to spend and save us time on filing them. oh, but he's going to pull out of iraq right? that's where he'll get the money, of course! oh wait, obama still wants to stabilize afghanistan which means it won't necessarily mean he will have less war spending, just war spending in a different country. Nice math... O_O We are already in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are not spending 0$ on Afghanistan. Personally, I'm worried about his commitment to Afghanistan for other reasons. Occupying a country in response to 19 members of a terrorist group is not sensible. Particularly when that country may not ever be likely to sustain a reform in a way that is to our preference, or even substantially different from the time of invasion. But then again, who knows how it will go with an actual competent person in charge? Circumstances will completely change (like if Obama managed to repair relations with Iran (who made large offers to assist us in Afghanistan (which Bush ignored (until he named them in the axis of evil speech and let the instability in Afghanistan spill over into Iran's border (e.g., drug smuggling))))). | ||
| ||
