Presidential Debate

[The Dean]

This one make me think 'Ralph Steadman'...

 

link

 

 

That's a good one, for sure.

[DC Tom]

I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.

-Will Rogers

 

If the Democrats somehow find a way to lose this giftwrapped election, they should disband the party and vow never to speak to one another again

 

I don't think I'd call this election gift-wrapped.

 

The LAST one was gift-wrapped, however...and they lost that.

[Alaska Darin]

I agree that you're right. But you're not right enough!

 

Obama = Pepsi = Blue Logo

McCain = Coke = Red Logo

 

Obama vs McCain = Coke vs Pepsi

 

Same general formula with a little different flavor

 

But MY brand is better than YOURS!

Too bad both of them are so bad for you.

[The Dean]

Too bad both of them are so bad for you.

 

 

You got that right AD.

[Guest dog14787]

You got that right AD.

 

Barrack Obama handled himself well and I really like this young fella allot, but if you want to run this country you cannot wilt under pressure and you must never show weakness. There are evil doers out there that hate everything our great country stands for, you cannot sit down and have a cup if tea with these folks and talk things over, its just not happening. These folks understand one thing, death and destruction of the American people and everything we stand for, they are beyond reason.

 

If Barrack Obama wants to win this election he needs to prove to the American people he can protect and keep our country safe better than John McCain,

 

and doing so will be about as tough as the man Obama's facing, because they don't make em any tougher then John McCain.

[KD in CA]

I don't understand why the pro-choice people don't say that the Republican candidate wants to force your raped daughter to have her baby. The right will say that Obama wants to kill babies. I think the vast number of Americans can see the difference.

 

Too bad a vast number of Americans are dumb enough to be swayed by such simpleton, sound-bite arguments.

[PromoTheRobot]

Just an observation but Barrack Obama seems to be distracted, rattled and at times he almost looked like a scolded puppy dog.

 

Obama is just way to out of touch with Foriegn policy and National Security.

 

Sorry fellas, just calling it like I see it.

Well we know where you stand. Are you watching through your Karl Rove goggles? The ones that make even George W. Bush look good?

 

PTR

[Guest dog14787]

Well we know where you stand. Are you watching through your Karl Rove goggles? The ones that make even George W. Bush look good?

 

PTR

 

 

Nawww, Its my brand new X-ray vision goggles.

 

When I look at John McCain I see backbone, Barrack Obama, well, I see right through him.

[PromoTheRobot]

Nawww, Its my brand new X-ray vision goggles.

 

When I look at John McCain I see backbone, Barrack Obama, well, I see right through him.

What you think is backbone is his Republican Party pole that holds him up. McCain hasn't been his own man since Bush crushed him in 2000. He's learned to follow orders since.

 

"Left-wing propaghanda rag*" Time Magazine rates the debate

(*aka any media that says anything nice about democrats)

 

The ORIGINAL Maverick!

 

PTR

[Dan]

I mean no disrespect to you Deano and I realize this is a very touchy subject for many Americans.

 

My little niece just joined the army 3 months ago, she's young, beautiful and she still has her whole life ahead of her. I don't want to see her go to Iraq, but when I brought up the subject to her and asked her if she would want to go there, she said if thats where my country needs me, then yes, its where I want to go.

 

So its hard for me to see my family members put in harms way, but she understands the situation in Iraq, she knew before she joined and she's OK with it.

 

I'm very,very proud of her.

I think the bolded portion is perhaps the most important question. Is that where her country needs her? Do we still need to be in Iraq? If yes, when do we no longer need to be there? Dean put it quite nicely; we've seemed to have several measures for "success" we've met them, yet we're still there with little end in sight.

 

I feel very fortunate to live in a country where people like your niece have the dedication and courage to volunteer for active military service. I just wish politicians would at least appear to use a little more fore thought and concern for their lives before putting them in harm's way.

 

 

One of the more interesting things I picked out of the debate... McCain said it was very, very dangerous to sit down and talk to Iran and other governments. How is it more dangerous to talk to someone than to send troops into their country?

 

All in all, I'd call the debate a draw. Neither guy really showed anything different than what we all already knew about them. Interesting reading all the opinions though.

[Guest dog14787]

I think the bolded portion is perhaps the most important question. Is that where her country needs her? Do we still need to be in Iraq? If yes, when do we no longer need to be there? Dean put it quite nicely; we've seemed to have several measures for "success" we've met them, yet we're still there with little end in sight.

 

I feel very fortunate to live in a country where people like your niece have the dedication and courage to volunteer for active military service. I just wish politicians would at least appear to use a little more fore thought and concern for their lives before putting them in harm's way.

 

 

One of the more interesting things I picked out of the debate... McCain said it was very, very dangerous to sit down and talk to Iran and other governments. How is it more dangerous to talk to someone than to send troops into their country?

 

All in all, I'd call the debate a draw. Neither guy really showed anything different than what we all already knew about them. Interesting reading all the opinions though.

 

The problem with sitting down with someone is you almost give credence to their beliefs and their actions when you do so, I'm not sure why folks have such a hard time understanding this line of reasoning.

 

Shall we sit down with Osama Bin Laden and discuss peace?

[Acantha]

The problem with sitting down with someone is you almost give credence to their beliefs and their actions when you do so, I'm not sure why folks have such a hard time understanding this line of reasoning.

 

Shall we sit down with Osama Bin Laden and discuss peace?

Nope, we should kill them all instead.

[DC Tom]

One of the more interesting things I picked out of the debate... McCain said it was very, very dangerous to sit down and talk to Iran and other governments. How is it more dangerous to talk to someone than to send troops into their country?

 

It depends. You don't want to necessarily have a public face-to-face with Iran or North Korea, for example, because you don't want to strengthen their positions by putting them on an equal footing with us (which is why we've pushed for six-party talks with North Korea, and heavily involved the EU and Russia with Iran for the past five years). Conversely, if a hostile nation makes concessions, you may actually want to have one-on-one talks to give said nation more legitimacy. E.g: Libya, or Syria before the Iraq invasion.

 

 

Bottom line is: it's not black and white. Both candidates - despite Obama's "without preconditions" lapse early on - understand the nuances, I think.

 

(And by the way, I thought it was stupid of McCain to so vocally tie Iran policy to Israel last night. Many Americans would support a hardline stance against Iran for our own country's sake, but not Israel's.)

[The Dean]

The problem with sitting down with someone is you almost give credence to their beliefs and their actions when you do so, I'm not sure why folks have such a hard time understanding this line of reasoning.

 

Shall we sit down with Osama Bin Laden and discuss peace?

 

 

Since Bin Laden is the head of no country (or official organization, for that matter) I would say no.

 

But, the "tough guy talk" approach to diplomacy has been a miserable failure. Unfortunately, that's what McCain believes in too, it seems. REAL diplomacy is needed. Talking isn't a sign of weakness, not talking is.

[Acantha]

It depends. You don't want to necessarily have a public face-to-face with Iran or North Korea, for example, because you don't want to strengthen their positions by putting them on an equal footing with us (which is why we've pushed for six-party talks with North Korea, and heavily involved the EU and Russia with Iran for the past five years). Conversely, if a hostile nation makes concessions, you may actually want to have one-on-one talks to give said nation more legitimacy. E.g: Libya, or Syria before the Iraq invasion.

 

 

Bottom line is: it's not black and white. Both candidates - despite Obama's "without preconditions" lapse early on - understand the nuances, I think.

 

(And by the way, I thought it was stupid of McCain to so vocally tie Iran policy to Israel last night. Many Americans would support a hardline stance against Iran for our own country's sake, but not Israel's.)

I don't agree with this argument and I never have. I do think that inviting these people to the White House, or having direct talks with our President is unnecessary until agreements have been reached. But to avoid having any talks with them at all comes across as nothing but childish spite, especially when we have such an aggressive posture toward them. It really says something when Japan, given all the horrific history, can have relations with N. Korea, yet we simply refuse.

 

And it becomes absolute hypocrisy when our congress is telling China that they need to have talks with the Dalai Lama with no preconditions. You know, in the name of peace.

[Lurker]

Just an observation but Barrack Obama seemed to be distracted, rattled and at times he almost looked like a scolded puppy dog.

 

Obama is just way to out of touch with Foriegn policy and National Security.

 

Sorry fellas, just calling it like I see it.

Wrong board.

[The Dean]

It depends. You don't want to necessarily have a public face-to-face with Iran or North Korea, for example, because you don't want to strengthen their positions by putting them on an equal footing with us (which is why we've pushed for six-party talks with North Korea, and heavily involved the EU and Russia with Iran for the past five years). Conversely, if a hostile nation makes concessions, you may actually want to have one-on-one talks to give said nation more legitimacy. E.g: Libya, or Syria before the Iraq invasion.

 

 

Bottom line is: it's not black and white. Both candidates - despite Obama's "without preconditions" lapse early on - understand the nuances, I think.

 

(And by the way, I thought it was stupid of McCain to so vocally tie Iran policy to Israel last night. Many Americans would support a hardline stance against Iran for our own country's sake, but not Israel's.)

 

 

Actually, I think Obama did a decent job citing the difference between "preparations" and "preconditions". The USA hasn't had talks with, or recognized Cuba for years (and China before them)...yet the rest of the world does (did). This kind of attitude is no longer useful in the modern world, IMO.

[Lurker]

Shall we sit down with Osama Bin Laden and discuss peace?

I guess you missed the two times Obama said we should kill Bin Laden...

[Dan]

The problem with sitting down with someone is you almost give credence to their beliefs and their actions when you do so, I'm not sure why folks have such a hard time understanding this line of reasoning.

 

Shall we sit down with Osama Bin Laden and discuss peace?

I understand that line of reasoning. But, whether you like it or not, the dude is the leader of Iran. To simply ignore him is not an option, IMO.

 

I would absolutely love for bin Laden to request a sit down discussion. I would show up in a heartbeat with gun in hand.

 

It depends. You don't want to necessarily have a public face-to-face with Iran or North Korea, for example, because you don't want to strengthen their positions by putting them on an equal footing with us (which is why we've pushed for six-party talks with North Korea, and heavily involved the EU and Russia with Iran for the past five years). Conversely, if a hostile nation makes concessions, you may actually want to have one-on-one talks to give said nation more legitimacy. E.g: Libya, or Syria before the Iraq invasion.

 

 

Bottom line is: it's not black and white. Both candidates - despite Obama's "without preconditions" lapse early on - understand the nuances, I think.

 

(And by the way, I thought it was stupid of McCain to so vocally tie Iran policy to Israel last night. Many Americans would support a hardline stance against Iran for our own country's sake, but not Israel's.)

I'd agree. It's not black and white; and therein lies the problem. By stating we won't sit down and talk - period, then you're trying to make it black and white - do what we want or we won't play.

 

 

 

Either way, I guess I'd rather have someone try to talk out the problems before they go in guns blazing; rather than shoot first and ask questions later. But that's just me.

[The Dean]

I understand that line of reasoning. But, whether you like it or not, the dude is the leader of Iran. To simply ignore him is not an option, IMO.

 

I would absolutely love for bin Laden to request a sit down discussion. I would show up in a heartbeat with gun in hand.

 

 

I'd agree. It's not black and white; and therein lies the problem. By stating we won't sit down and talk - period, then you're trying to make it black and white - do what we want or we won't play.

 

 

 

Either way, I guess I'd rather have someone try to talk out the problems before they go in guns blazing; rather than shoot first and ask questions later. But that's just me.

 

 

Of course, it is nuanced, and not black and white. But, as to your last point, that is one of McCain's biggest problems, IMO. He is an "act/talk first, think later" kind of guy, and his judgment has been horrible, in the past.