Official Obama- McCain debate thread

page: 17
3
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   


This is the full debate. not sure if anyone has posted it yet.

Could a mod please fix the link and place it at the start of the thread!




posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by Spoodily
There's black people that will vote for McCain, there's white people that will vote for Obama. I just hope everyone makes their pick for the right reasons.

I think Obama and his wife know what it is like to be an average American and what is needed to help the average American. This is where I fit in.

McCain was the son of a Navy Admiral and his wife is rich and wears $300,000 outfits. McCain doesn't understand people like me.


Since when does the "Average American" travel all around the world and spend a majority of their upbringing abroad? I also had no idea that the "Average American" manages to attend Grade-Level Academies, then Two Ivy-League Institutions (Columbia Undergraduate, then Harvard Law School).

Not to mention that Senator Obama and his Wife are every bit as wealthy as Senator McCain and his Wife.




HE's average... But he is also an over achiever. Many realities can exist at the same time and still be true. The guy drove around in a wreck for more than half his life. He had to take out student loans from the same sources we all do. He was smart enough and diligent enough to become the president of the HARVARD LAW REVEIW. I don't care what any says, thats like be good enough to ref an EIGHT DEGREE BLACK BELT
match. The best of the best of the best. He was able to apply himself and do that on his own volition and determination.

Then PEOPLE HAVE the brass to call him an elitist. HE is elite alright, hes a walking mental giant. HE is elite

b. The best or most skilled members of a group.

However the people who call him elite the MCCAIN camp have the most brass.
John Mccain was born in to a very affluent military family, with name and an estate.
HIS current wife is an heiress of a family fortune that exceeds $100,000,000,000.00.

ON the other had this second camp is also elite

a. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, social, or economic status:



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator

Then PEOPLE HAVE the brass to call him an elitist. HE is elite alright, hes a walking mental giant. HE is elite...

ON the other had this second camp is also elite



Which brings up the curious way McCain and Obama rose to the top during the primaries. Why did so many primary candidates drop out so early in the race? It wasn't like there was any definite leader of the pack out-doing the others. Romney had a better lead than McCain. Giuliani had more popularity than any other Republican running but he didn't participate in the primaries, though he was on the ballot. And how did an nobody Senator of two years from the Farrakhan district get so much attention from early on even though Hillary was much more well-known. How? I suspect the Fed bankers had a lot to do with it. Lots of backroom dealings. I imagine Obama was being primed for presidency in future elections and surprised his handlers by getting votes beyond anyone's expectations. Romney was probably offered a deal of being on McCain's cabinet and convinced to drop out. The real money was probably on McCain and Hillary.

So the question isn't who won the debate. It really doesn't matter. Both Obama and McCain fit right in with the Fed's agenda. Until this Federal Reserve business is cleaned up, the elections are just showpieces of "democracy" while the real wheelings and dealings are happening behind the scenes. (And who owns the media outlets that determine what gets reported? Follow the money.)

Kennedy's attempt to get rid of the Fed Bank is what got him killed. Nobody else has tried since. Essentially we have "mafia" bankers deciding the outcome of the election. It doesn't matter who wins. And the economy isn't going to be fixed as long as the Fed is in charge.

www.illuminati-news.com...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
did McCain look at Obama once? Was this done on purpose to look superior to Obama? I think it looked bad on McCains part. Of course others will think it was pure brilliance, I think it came across as rude.


There was a point very early in the debate when Jim, very abruptly, asked Obama to direct his responses to McCain and not to him...At that point Obama made a real effort to always look at McCain while speaking...

What is interesting to me is that Jim did not say the same to McCain...Out of respect? Both Jim and McCain being in the same age group?

In a way, that statement from Jim hurt Obama somewhat, as Obama followed Jim's direction without question, indicating a potential of being easily influenced by someone older than him...

Which may mean, as President, he could be bullied by the senior members of Congress...

McCain, having head Jim's remark (I am certain), still chose to look at Jim rather than Obama...And act of defiance and maverick traits...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by swdecord
 


It does not mean he's easily influenced because he listened to the debate mod. Cmon. hogwash......



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by swdecord
 


Yeah no offense man, but I agree that sounds a little silly to me.

The Mod did not only address Obama, he asked them both to start looking and debating with each other. Actually that was quite clear.

Personally, I really wanted them to look at each other and debate with each other, so I was happy Obama was compliant with the Mods request. I was upset that McCain did not...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by swdecord
 


Yeah no offense man, but I agree that sounds a little silly to me.

The Mod did not only address Obama, he asked them both to start looking and debating with each other. Actually that was quite clear.

Personally, I really wanted them to look at each other and debate with each other, so I was happy Obama was compliant with the Mods request. I was upset that McCain did not...


Actually, I've never heard of a presidential debate being about one opponent talking directly to the other. Me thinks Jim Lehrer was just trying to sensationalize the event and turn it into a shouting match. McCain, being old enough to know better, didn't fall for the request...

Okay, I see this debate had a new format. See here:


Among them is a major new feature: In the first and third presidential debates, there will be a five-minute "discussion" period following each candidate's answer to a question. The idea is to promote more freewheeling back-and-forth between the candidates, the commission official said.


www.cnn.com...

The problem with this is that it turns the debate into a free-for-all. Imagine a whole debate with each canditate interupting the other and allowing direct jabs. I think the idea is more for the benefit of increasing viewers than for actual content to be discussed. In other words, it gives Leher the permission to provoke argument through pitting one against the other. Too much power and chance of manipulation if you ask me. There's no dignity in it.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Wow, what a puppet show that debate was. Aside from some of the ludicrous claims coming from both of these guys, did anyone notice the big symbol hanging over the candidates heads during the debate? It was an eagle perched on a shield of the American flag, but the way the eagle was positioned on the shield made it look like an upside down American flag...I only noticed it was actually a shield after seeing it a few times. Of all the symbols and ways they could have positioned these symbols used for the debate, why did they choose something giving the resemblance to an upside down American flag??

Also, did anyone else hear a high pitched ring for parts of the debate? I was watching it on Fox.

I love how both candidates now support increasing troops in the middle east...getting out of there isn't even an option for us anymore.....so we'll set up a perminant residence there? One step closer to globalism...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix1111
 


Ok fair. But I remember a lot of people complaining that the 2004 debates were far to scripted and protective of the candidates. It involved almost NO interaction whatsoever. This is an attempt to fix that. Id rather they talk back and forth and see who looses their cool than some protective debate that encourages no discourse and all script answers



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:41 PM
link   
As I expected, both sides claimed victory in the debate. You can find polls that slant the win way left or right depending on their agenda and the nature of their readers/voters. An AOL poll I saw was likely the most honest because of the diversity of it's members. It gave McCain a slight win in the debate which I also agree with. So the AOL poll was unscientific?
true, but I often find that "scientific poll" is an oxymoron. The well known "scientific" polls have historically done a very poor job of picking the winner of the U.S. presidential race unless there was a landslide coming. I find the Democratic strategy of "soaking the rich" to be similar to a "temporary tax." There ain't no such thing. Before it's all said and done, the middle class ends up becoming the "rich" when the greedy tax and spend politicians need more cash. I don't agree with the philosophy that it's patriotic to pay more taxes either. Cut spending first!
As noted above, the debate was close to a draw in my opinion, with a slight edge to McCain. I do think that McCain will win the election in November, but I do enjoy hearing the opinions of everyone else here on both sides of the aisle. (and elsewhere) We have a couple more of these to look forward to soon.





[edit on 9/28/2008 by TheAvenger]



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Gentlemen,

Please note that I stated that I also noticed McCain's "defiance," which is not a favorable observation of his behavior...

Thus, my post was critical of both candidates, however, as we are communicating via the written word and do not have the benefit of voice inflection and body language, I can understand your responses...And, I might add...I assume that both of you are democrats, so you "may" view my post through "dem" colored glasses...Especially since my avatar is the eagle with U.S.N. and a military collar insignia superimposed...

The reason for my avatar is that I am a disabled veteran from the first Gulf War, during which, BTW, we should have finished the mission...

Because of this, you "may" assume that I totally support McCain, which is not true...

I am an Independent and have voted both parties (which, BTW, I believe is the problem with politics today...We need more than "two" choices)...

But, enough of that...

Back to Obama and McCain...

Obama is 47, as am I...He is part of the Baby Boomer generation and we were taught to respect our elders and to question little (Yes, there was the "Flower Power" period in the 1960s, but it was small and didn't last)...So, it "may" have been Obama's upbringing which caused him to defer to Jim...Good for him...I respect that and may have done the same...

UNLESS, again, UNLESS, I was running for the most powerful position in America and the world...As the president, it is imperative to have a commanding presence and a perception (I mention perception as it is "reality" to most people) of decisivness...

I mention the word "decisivness," as Obama agreed with McCain's statements at least five times, if not more, during the debate...Perhaps he was attempting to attract the Independents who lean right, or the Republican's who are fed up with Dubya...If that was the case, he is a very savvy politician...

But, "perception" says to the average American, and I am no expert on politics, that he is agreeing with McCain...So, they MAY say to themselves, "Gee, if Obama is agreeing with McCain, and McCain has a lot of experience and appears calm, which is indicative of his long time in the Senate, then let's vote for McCain...Obama will still have an influence over McCain's decisions, as he is a Senator...

It is most important to note that, prior to Nixon, American's respect for the presidency was absolute....Back then, American's overlooked many indiscretions with regard to the presidency...

Today, the press constantly looks for a story, especially involving the president...

Think of JFK, who Obama is likened...Back then, no one knew that JFK was the least healthy of ALL presidents in office to date...

His injuries caused a reliance on pain medication, including his time in office during the "Cuban Missle Missle Crisis (a defining and very scary moment in American history)...Average Americans, at the time, did not know of his condition, as the press suppressed it...

Yet, during the Cuban Missle Crisis, JFK was under the influence of pain killers (a fact)...

But Clinton (BTW, I voted for him) and Monica Lewinsky?

The press crucified Clinton...For a sexual indiscretion? Ridiculous!

So, what we see on TV today is biased...And influences voters...BTW, in my experience, a lot of the press/networks lean toward the democratic agenda...

So, Obama faces a tough road ahead...He is junior in the Senate and has little experience...

I do like his challenge of "Change"...But....

In closing, Obama must, to be elected, show a presence of command and resolve and ignore any opponents who may go against him...

At present, with no one but McCain and Obama to elect, I will probably choose McCain, as I think he will be able to effect more change than Obama...

Just my opinion gang...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I have to give Obama credit where it's due. Obama didn't say "uh" nearly as much as he used to. It's obvious to me that he's been practicing his public speaking skills and the improvement showed.

But something else I caught, about halfway through the debate and onward, Obama seemed to keep throwing little things at McCain here and there to try and make him lose his temper. For example, McCain was talking about the bracelet that some deceased soldier's mother asked him to wear (which I thought was a bit cheesy to bring up during the debate) and when it was Obama's turn his first words were "I have a bracelet too!" and he help up his right hand.

Clearly a poke at the temper button, IMO. McCain kept his cool and I applaud him for that.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAvenger
As I expected, both sides claimed victory in the debate. You can find polls that slant the win way left or right depending on their agenda and the nature of their readers/voters. An AOL poll I saw was likely the most honest because of the diversity of it's members. It gave McCain a slight win in the debate which I also agree with. So the AOL poll was unscientific?
true, but I often find that "scientific poll" is an oxymoron. The well known "scientific" polls have historically done a very poor job of picking the winner of the U.S. presidential race unless there was a landslide coming. I find the Democratic strategy of "soaking the rich" to be similar to a "temporary tax." There ain't no such thing. Before it's all said and done, the middle class ends up becoming the "rich" when the greedy tax and spend politicians need more cash. I don't agree with the philosophy that it's patriotic to pay more taxes either. Cut spending first!
As noted above, the debate was close to a draw in my opinion, with a slight edge to McCain. I do think that McCain will win the election in November, but I do enjoy hearing the opinions of everyone else here on both sides of the aisle. (and elsewhere) We have a couple more of these to look forward to soon.





[edit on 9/28/2008 by TheAvenger]


Regarding the AOL POLL... I would say on the contrary

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I did not get a screen shot, but I made this thread in order to little things up.

At the time the AOL had MCCAIN up 50 -

YA 50 states,,,

Every single state was red and the map was interactive. REALLY funny.

That being said I would NOT take AOL seriously.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by Matrix1111
 


Ok fair. But I remember a lot of people complaining that the 2004 debates were far to scripted and protective of the candidates. It involved almost NO interaction whatsoever. This is an attempt to fix that. Id rather they talk back and forth and see who looses their cool than some protective debate that encourages no discourse and all script answers


In that case I think the debate rules should mandate an entirely new format:

1.) local sports bar

2.) each contestant must consume a shot of tequila every ten minutes

3.) the last man standing wins the debate

It would definitely allow the public to see the real Obama and McCain. And we'd really get beyond the false facades and scripted answers. And by the end, we'd have Mel Gibson DUI types of remarks for sure coming from both canditates. Now that I could go for. But giving the moderator power to provoke and attack the candidate he doesn't like with a confrontational therapy setup? Give me a break!!



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I think the difference is this. Obama speaks to the public as if we are intelligent, learned adults (which I think most of us are) and McCain talks very slowly as if he is talking to someone with a lower-level of intelligence than himself. So, more than race or political offiliations, I think that this will be more of a "level of understanding" choice. Those that want to be "petted" and reassurred will vote for McCain and those that want to be talked to like respectable adults will most likely vote for Obama.

Just my opinion, though.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix1111

I actually liked the oppositional format this time, although I felt it would have been better had McCain played along. I'm not looking for someone with experience, but someone with judgment. That includes the judgment of when to and when not to interrupt someone. The new debate also gives each candidate the opportunity to correct any false impressions given by the other.

I see the points that have been made about Obama not showing a decisive stance by accepting the new format, but I consider knowing when to take a stance as important as being able to take a stance. After all, we have just gone through 8 years of a President who seems to consider himself an authority on every issue and therefore doesn't need to listen to anyone else (even the people). I'd rather try someone this time around who does have the ability to listen to all sides and reach a reasonable solution. And allowing a moderator to control the debate they are hosting is not exactly giving up the ranch.

McCain seemed very unwilling to try the new rules. Is that an unwillingness to accept changes in his surroundings?

Again, I am an independent who dislikes both parties at the moment. But right now I am disliking McCain much more than Obama. I think the real test will come in the Biden/Palin debates. Thus far I like Obama more than McCain, but Palin more than Biden.


This is gonna be an interesting wind-down to November, that much is sure.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


You make a good point about McCain not willing to adapt and being too rigid. His body language definitely projects this. But is that a good trait to have during this time of turmoil in the world or a detriment? Should a politician stick to his principles or should he always be influx depending on who's around him and influencing him? It would be interesting to see what McCain actually thinks of the matter and gives as an explanation for his unwillingness to play by the new confrontational rules.

[edit on 9/29/2008 by Matrix1111]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix1111

I'd say it would depend on what one is being rigid about. Such an attitude on central moral I see as a good thing, but on details or implementation, I would say not so much.

I see that as the biggest problem with the Bush administration. While I admire his resolve to fight terrorism, I detest his methods, because he seems to have his mind made up before he gets the big picture. This time around, it would be nice of we could get a bit of change in that arena at least.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   
In Sunday's interview with George Stephanopoulos, McCain denied that he didn't look at Obama. He said he looked at him many times. He said that accusation was "foolishness".

What? It's like he doesn't realize that the whole thing is on tape! It's another out-of-touch-with-reality situation.

Interview Here

It's at about -7:45

[edit on 29-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

I see that as the biggest problem with the Bush administration. While I admire his resolve to fight terrorism, I detest his methods, because he seems to have his mind made up before he gets the big picture. This time around, it would be nice if we could get a bit of change in that arena at least.

TheRedneck


I agree. Bush got too big for his britches real quick.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join