|
On September 28 2008 04:53 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +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"?
nobody's saying you have to support obama, but you could be a lot less confrontational when making your points =/ (proof of this, Savio's a mccain supporter and most of us have been getting along with him fine)
On September 28 2008 02:20 pooper-scooper wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2008 17:01 a-game wrote:On September 27 2008 16:52 NovaTheFeared wrote:On September 27 2008 15:02 MYM.Testie wrote:
All the polls say Obama won, quite handily too. You mean nonscientific self selected internet polls? If that's the case Ron Paul wins the internet and will be our next president. There hasn't been time for a real poll to be released yet. he wasn't referring to internet polls, there was a CNN poll and another poll (by CBS or MSNBC or someone like that) The poll consisted of interviews with 524 adult Americans who watched the debate conducted by telephone on September 26. All interviews were conducted after the end of the debate 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.
here's the other one then 
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/cbs_news_knowledge_network_und.php
40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won. 38% saw it as a draw.
68% of these voters think Obama would make the right decision
about the economy. 41% think McCain would.
49% of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. 55% think McCain would.
Slow Edit: Note I don't hold much stock in these polls, in my opinion the best thing about them is that it will steer the talking heads' narratives for a few days. man i hate those guys.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 28 2008 05:22 mahnini wrote:
because the taxpayers are going to end up paying for it instead of private corporations investing themselves. and instead of waiting till it is economically efficient to do so the government is going to end up paying more for less at a time when the cost for these technologies are higher because they will be forcing the adoption of them.
Taxpayers always pay for major technologies but it doesn't necessarily mean it'll hurt the economy. Pharma, aero tech, the intarweb, etc.
|
What TOTAL wastes of our hard earned money -_-. Ron Paul for President.
|
On September 28 2008 05:32 Servolisk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2008 04:53 mahnini wrote: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! 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.
The government is already a decade or more behind private businesses in terms finding alternative fuels or more efficient use for gas.
Of course there is no reason why it couldn't happen, doesn't mean we should take his word for it considering that it's apparently one of the major factors that are funding his ideas.
Show nested quote +
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))))).
obama won't be spending $0 in iraq either. i believe he said he would setup a 16 month timetable or something similar during which $10billion would be spent per month. considering the unpredictability of conducting a war, however, i don't think this is the most intelligent approach. regardless, we will still be spending a very large amount in afghanistan as well, if/when we pull out of iraq. you cant choose between the lesser of two evils and magically your economic programs will be funded.
|
On September 28 2008 05:35 a-game wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2008 04:53 mahnini wrote: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"? nobody's saying you have to support obama, but you could be a lot less confrontational when making your points =/ (proof of this, Savio's a mccain supporter and most of us have been getting along with him fine)
haha, don't hold me to a double standard
p.s. i support neither candidate i just despise obama's economic stance, if anything come the election i would vote for obama
|
On September 28 2008 05:38 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2008 05:22 mahnini wrote:
because the taxpayers are going to end up paying for it instead of private corporations investing themselves. and instead of waiting till it is economically efficient to do so the government is going to end up paying more for less at a time when the cost for these technologies are higher because they will be forcing the adoption of them. Taxpayers always pay for major technologies but it doesn't necessarily mean it'll hurt the economy. Pharma, aero tech, the intarweb, etc.
i'm not sure about pharmaceutical innovations but aeronautics and the internet were very niche fields. not only this but most aeronautic innovations come from defense contracts which come from private businesses. the internet was something completely new and different when it was conceived which is different from what alternative energies are today.
|
On September 28 2008 05:46 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2008 05:32 Servolisk wrote:On September 28 2008 04:53 mahnini wrote: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! 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. The government is already a decade or more behind private businesses in terms finding alternative fuels or more efficient use for gas.
What do you mean about them being behind? Their role is to sponsor private businesses and offer incentives. And as for being behind, there are already viable improvements the government could allow as soon as they changed their policy.
Of course there is no reason why it couldn't happen, doesn't mean we should take his word for it considering that it's apparently one of the major factors that are funding his ideas.
You're absolutely right, mahnini (I'm saying it like that to see if this, as Republicans say, makes me auto-lose the debate), however taking a risk on him potentially delivering is more appealing than the guaranteed disaster that is McCain.
Show nested quote +
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))))).
obama won't be spending $0 in iraq either. i believe he said he would setup a 16 month timetable or something similar during which $10billion would be spent per month. considering the unpredictability of conducting a war, however, i don't think this is the most intelligent approach. regardless, we will still be spending a very large amount in afghanistan as well, if/when we pull out of iraq. you cant choose between the lesser of two evils and magically your economic programs will be funded.
Math is still wrong. McCain will not only increase money in Iraq and Afghanistan (he had to say he would for consistency :/), he will probably invade Iran, and who knows who else. Then again, idk if McCain is cool with killing every last person in those countries, which is cheaper than occupying, so maybe he would save us money.
War is indeed generally unpredictable, but it is a safe prediction that McCain (who wishes we stayed in Vietnam, ffs) will keep on spending money until he "wins" (which he probably won't). It is a pretty safe bet that whatever does happen Obama's response will involve less fighting and therefore less money. In addition to advocating a draw down in our war efforts, Obama has far, far more diplomatic potential than McCain, which is a large factor in avoiding conflicts and therefore spending. Bush and McCain like to lay much of the failure in Iraq to interference from Iran. If Iran is so responsible it is a great example of the affects of bad diplomacy which McCain intends to continue.
No one has said that this will fund all of our economic programs, but it obviously gives us more to spend on them.
|
On September 28 2008 06:07 Servolisk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2008 05:46 mahnini wrote:On September 28 2008 05:32 Servolisk wrote:On September 28 2008 04:53 mahnini wrote: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! 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. The government is already a decade or more behind private businesses in terms finding alternative fuels or more efficient use for gas. What do you mean about them being behind? Their role is to sponsor private businesses and offer incentives. And as for being behind, there are already viable improvements the government could allow as soon as they changed their policy.
I'm saying private investment in alternative fuels began over a decade ago, before the government even considered it a problem. New alternatives to traditional gasoline are being developed everyday without any government intervention at all.
Show nested quote +
Of course there is no reason why it couldn't happen, doesn't mean we should take his word for it considering that it's apparently one of the major factors that are funding his ideas.
You're absolutely right, mahnini (I'm saying it like that to see if this, as Republicans say, makes me auto-lose the debate), however taking a risk on him potentially delivering is more appealing than the guaranteed disaster that is McCain.
I don't know about the specifics but Mccain seems to have a much better fundamental understanding about what he's doing in terms of economy.
Show nested quote +
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))))). Show nested quote +
obama won't be spending $0 in iraq either. i believe he said he would setup a 16 month timetable or something similar during which $10billion would be spent per month. considering the unpredictability of conducting a war, however, i don't think this is the most intelligent approach. regardless, we will still be spending a very large amount in afghanistan as well, if/when we pull out of iraq. you cant choose between the lesser of two evils and magically your economic programs will be funded.
Math is still wrong. McCain will not only increase money in Iraq and Afghanistan (he had to say he would for consistency :/), he will probably invade Iran, and who knows who else. Then again, idk if McCain is cool with killing every last person in those countries, which is cheaper than occupying, so maybe he would save us money. War is indeed generally unpredictable, but it is a safe prediction that McCain (who wishes we stayed in Vietnam, ffs) will keep on spending money until he "wins" (which he probably won't). It is a pretty safe bet that whatever does happen Obama's response will involve less fighting and therefore less money. In addition to advocating a draw down in our war efforts, Obama has far, far more diplomatic potential than McCain, which is a large factor in avoiding conflicts and therefore spending. Bush and McCain like to lay much of the failure in Iraq to interference from Iran. If Iran is so responsible it is a great example of the affects of bad diplomacy which McCain intends to continue. No one has said that this will fund all of our economic programs, but it obviously gives us more to spend on them.
This is really leading to foreign relations talk which I have said before Obama's stance is far superior. Again, just because we are spending less doesn't mean we can spend more, especially for the things Obama plans on supporting.
|
mahnini, do you support war over diplomacy ?
Impredictability over stability ?
I mean, say what you say, no usa president is gonna sit on the white house to ignore all his advisors and make major fuck ups on every area he has massive imput from pentagon, cia, expertes, generals, etc... (hmmm I guess bush doesnt really help this statement).
What does make a difference, is if he believes hes playing command and conquer, instead of being president, and so far, McCain has showed, with all his campaign focus on wearing obama down, only shows he has LESS to offer, I mean, most of the correct statements he makes are things you would be a complete retard to disagree, and then Savio comes and say "he agreed to this and that", well, good, he can agree with people, unlike McCain and the current administration, witch require people to be agreeing with you in everything or you are not in the "cool kids" group
|
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
All of those sound great, out of context, if you want to spin it that way.
But for anyone who watched the debate, it was the equivalent of the following:
McCain: "Mars bars are made out of chocolate"
Obama: "You're absolutely right, John, but Mars bars are made tasty by caramel and delicious nougat!"
The point being that while McCain was correct in the overall scheme, Obama continually challenged his understanding of the finer details. It's like "Ok, captain obvious, but here's the rest of the story."
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 28 2008 07:57 Flaccid wrote:Show nested quote +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 All of those sound great, out of context, if you want to spin it that way. But for anyone who watched the debate, it was the equivalent of the following: McCain: "Mars bars are made out of chocolate"Obama: "You're absolutely right, John, but Mars bars are made tasty by caramel and delicious nougat!"The point being that while McCain was correct in the overall scheme, Obama continually challenged his understanding of the finer details. It's like "Ok, captain obvious, but here's the rest of the story."
ty
|
|
|
I was not impressed with McCain's conduct during the debate. He continually made emotional appeals and Obama had to interrupt him numerous times to correct distortions. I actually started counting the number of times Obama had to interrupt him and I got to 13 before the debate was over. He started the debate with emotion based appeals by talking about kenedy's hospitalization are kept hammering the point "we will not let the heroic sacrifice of our troups be in vain." I was also not impressed how he failed to attribute the lessening of sectarian violence in Iraq to anything other than the surge.
I'll cite a quick example of his distortions. McCain claimed Obama is against nuclear power... which isn't true at all. McCain originally claimed to want an honest and clean campaign... but he's lost that principle.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 28 2008 09:18 D10 wrote:
video
Wow. I don't exactly know what to say about this, but it seems profound. I don't know exactly what about it seems profound, since the fact that Obama thinks his supporters are less likely to vote shouldn't really cause any stark controversy, but something inside me just went "O_O" when I watched this.
|
I just rewatched the debate (had it recorded) and in the second viewing Obama looked much stronger. It's as if McCain's redundant responses lose the effect when repeated.
Whereas I found myself learning more by listening to Obama for the second time, McCain came off as predictable, and lacking enough substance to warrant a repeat viewing. Deep vs. shallow, etc.
|
On September 28 2008 08:27 aRod wrote:
I was not impressed with McCain's conduct during the debate. He continually made emotional appeals and Obama had to interrupt him numerous times to correct distortions. I actually started counting the number of times Obama had to interrupt him and I got to 13 before the debate was over. He started the debate with emotion based appeals by talking about kenedy's hospitalization are kept hammering the point "we will not let the heroic sacrifice of our troups be in vain." I was also not impressed how he failed to attribute the lessening of sectarian violence in Iraq to anything other than the surge.
I'll cite a quick example of his distortions. McCain claimed Obama is against nuclear power... which isn't true at all. McCain originally claimed to want an honest and clean campaign... but he's lost that principle.
Actually, I thought that Obama's interruptions just meant he was more rude. The way the debate was set up was that after 1 person spoke, the other always had the opportunity to respond, correct, set the table straight or whatever. I don't think that McCain ever interrupted Obama. He waited until Obama was done and then responded.
Have you ever tried to have a debate or discussion who interrupts you before you are done making your point? Its the worst.
I think that Obama could point out when McCain was being misleading, but he should wait until his turn. Otherwise it just looks like he is trying to stifle McCain's words.
(But actually, it was a pretty tame and respectful debate overall. His debates with Hillary were way more lively and had a LOT more interrupting)
|
On September 27 2008 19:59 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2008 19:43 KlaCkoN wrote:
Besides I thought the standard recipie for dealing with ecconomic reccesion was increased taxes and increased governemental investments?
The 'textbook' method you were thinking of was probably the anti-cyclic fiscal policy of increasing governmental investments but decreasing taxes, resulting in more money in circulation, effectively stopping the vicious cycle of recession. The downside of this is obviously that it'll result in governmental debt. The idea of anti-cyclic fiscal policy is that you make debt in recession, then raise the taxes and cut governmental spending during economic booms, limiting inflation and creating a governmental surplus with which you can pay back the debts made during the recession.
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
Come on Savio, you've made some good points in this thread and you're an intelligent fellow but this is ludicrous.
|
On September 28 2008 09:46 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2008 08:27 aRod wrote:
I was not impressed with McCain's conduct during the debate. He continually made emotional appeals and Obama had to interrupt him numerous times to correct distortions. I actually started counting the number of times Obama had to interrupt him and I got to 13 before the debate was over. He started the debate with emotion based appeals by talking about kenedy's hospitalization are kept hammering the point "we will not let the heroic sacrifice of our troups be in vain." I was also not impressed how he failed to attribute the lessening of sectarian violence in Iraq to anything other than the surge.
I'll cite a quick example of his distortions. McCain claimed Obama is against nuclear power... which isn't true at all. McCain originally claimed to want an honest and clean campaign... but he's lost that principle. Actually, I thought that Obama's interruptions just meant he was more rude. The way the debate was set up was that after 1 person spoke, the other always had the opportunity to respond, correct, set the table straight or whatever. I don't think that McCain ever interrupted Obama. He waited until Obama was done and then responded. Have you ever tried to have a debate or discussion who interrupts you before you are done making your point? Its the worst. I think that Obama could point out when McCain was being misleading, but he should wait until his turn. Otherwise it just looks like he is trying to stifle McCain's words. (But actually, it was a pretty tame and respectful debate overall. His debates with Hillary were way more lively and had a LOT more interrupting)
What is he going to interrupt Obama about ?
"interrupts obama" Hey, lemme add this lie to the pool
He would just get destroyed if he did that, unlike obama who was interrupting him to tell the damn truth who is so direly disregarded by McCain that he refuses to aknowledge it even if it comes to him as a punch in the face.
Dont make the same mistake he made, vote Obama.
edit: like that is gonna change your mind lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3001/2891789396_4ac6a4ba40.jpg?v=0)
