Thoughts on First Debate [Archive]

usmc1

09-27-2008, 07:38 AM

No wonder McCain wanted to bail, it was like watching my grandfathers kvetch. No strike that. My grandfathers were essentially nice guys—McCain is so essentially not a nice guy. This fellow, McCain, who has the world by the ***, is just another angry old white-guy. The only thing missing is the white beard to hide the fat jowls and driving the beat-to-hell, faded, butterscotch-yellow, Datsun pick-up truck with a Bush/Cheney sticker. He has thirteen cars, none of which, I’ll just bet, is a faded, etc., etc.
 <o></o>
McCain was dismissive, insulting and contemptuous of Obama and never looked his way when making snide and snarky comments about him. Even conservative commentators noted his rudeness. This may account for the fact that the internals of the debate polls indicate that women, by a significant majority, found Obama favorable and McCain unfavorable. Many more people asserted they had a more favorable impression of Obama from the debate than they had for McCain. Who wants a glowering, hunched-up, angry old white guy preaching at them—most have had enough of that when asking dad for the car keys!
 <o></o>
Why in the world would he keep invoking the specters of Reagan and Nixon? That might play well with the angry old white-guys in their compact pick-ups, but most of us see Nixon as a perfidious bastard who escaped impeachment by resignation, and Reagan as the primary architect of the deregulation resulting in our higher monthly electric bills and substantially contributing to the current economic catastrophe. Why raise those ugly reference points in people’s minds? Good grief?
 <o></o>
This was supposed to be McCain’s strong suit; foreign policy and national security, however it was Obama who had the facts and outlined a program for the future while McCain self-indulgently basked in Vietnam era and Cold War hot-button talking points. One wanted to shout, “John there are several generations of voting-age adults out there watching this for whom Vietnam and the Cold War are vague memories of high-school mid-term essay assignments. There are some other, really dangerous, things going on. Come into the 21st century with the rest of us.”
 <o></o>
Actually, Obama did tell him that when he mentioned a nuke in a suitcase!
 <o></o>
Last night, I was a little disappointed that Obama did not take the opportunity to “dope-slap” McCain on his misrepresentations and lies. And, I felt he was a bit generous in acknowledging there were points of agreement between them. My personal preference is to go for the jugular and have blood spraying the walls.
 <o></o>
But after a good night’s sleep, some reflection, and a quick review of the polls, I’ve changed my mind—and so have others. Obama came across as a decent, respectful, caring and knowledgeable man and most women do not really care for personal attack and contentious argument. If, as most pundits say, white women are the key to this election, then Obama’s presidential bearing compared to just another angry, old white guy carried the night!

Naturist Mark

09-27-2008, 08:50 AM

I think both candidates achieved what they wanted to achieve. McCain looked awake, alert, and (barely) in control - which counts as 'vitality', and considerably less confused than his public appearances made him appear in the last week. Obama was intelligent, cool - yet forceful in measured doses, and very polite (although he did get a few digs in) - in contrast to McCain's more pugnacious behavior. Indeed Obama passed on several opportunities to skewer McCain gaffes (and lies) that many observers thought he should have pounced on, and was often gracious to McCain - repeatedly pointing out where he thought McCain was correct (you'll soon see those statements edited together in McCain web ads). Of course the forcefulness and rudeness that makes McCain look vital and on top of things would make Obama look like an angry black man. Each had a role they had to stick to - and both played those roles well.

Most viewers saw their favorite as the clear winner by overwhelming margins - which is more of a plus to McCain than Obama since McCain is the one who needs to firm up support in his own base.

Among undecideds Obama faired a little better than McCain, mostly due to his more 'presidential' demeanor. A clear majority of the (non-Fox) media debate scorers called it for Obama. But many of them were swayed by Obama's accuracy and McCain's repeated gaffes and lies. But debates are not won on fact checking, McCain probably did a good job among so called 'low information' voters.

So while I do agree Obama was the leader in this debate, McCain probably benefited more due to exceeding expectations - deliberately lowered expectations - and for appearing competent after a disastrous week of gaffes and missteps.

-Mark

NudeAl

09-27-2008, 09:13 AM

Most of the polls I have seen show that Obama won, however it depends on the demographics you poll. I see he won handily with women while not so much with men. I really have no faith in polls at this point. I watched and I liked Obama. However I think he needed to go after McCain more aggressively. I was very angry when McCain would go on and on and on and on and no one stopped him!! I felt like someone needed to shove a sock in his yap! I am just afraid Obama will be perceived as weak since he was so nice to McCain. I agree he took the high road he was a gentleman however I feel a few times he should have said Now hold on a minute that is not true that is a LIE!! He did get a few good digs in in that bit about you were wrong on that you were wrong on Iraq that one etc.

I just feel he is more in touch with the trouble I and many fellow Americans are going through. He seemed to be more in touch with middle class America.

Boreas

09-27-2008, 09:17 AM

I only caught a little of the debate. To be honest, some of it went over my head in some respects. I attribute that to cultural differences. :) We do not use terms such as "ear marks" and "pork barrel" here, and I don't fully understand their meaning, so when those terms were flying around too much, they might as well have been speaking Greek! :o

usmc, your assessment of McCain as an angry old white man identifies another reason I had a hard time watching. I couldn't put a finger on it at the time. I do now see the disdain that McCain had for Obama......well, I did catch it last night too.

I heard a clip from the debate that disturbed me. I do know it was only a clip, and perhaps context would make it different. The clip I heard had McCain saying that there should be freezes on spending, and that only spending related to defence, and other security be left unfrozen. To me that spoke volumes about his priorities......and scared me! We do NOT need that.

For the record, I do believe that defence spending is important, just not at the expense of other important things.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

LamontCranston

09-27-2008, 10:00 AM

The clip I heard had McCain saying that there should be freezes on spending, and that only spending related to defence, and other security be left unfrozen. To me that spoke volumes about his priorities......and scared me! We do NOT need that.

There is a school of thought that reasons the only purpose of federal government over the states was to provide defense and a common currency to facilitate trade between the states. Much more like the European Union today or maybe the UN over the GIANT BEHEMOTH DO EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE thing that it's grown into.

It was only 60 years ago that Germany rolled over Poland, Belgium and France. The U.S. let that and the air raids over England go on for three or more years before committing troops in the field. Contrast that with the immediate belligerent threatening response to Russia moving into Georgia. Times change and maybe it's not better.

The U.S. doesn't need to control every country, every citizen, and every piece of real estate. It might be this society could benefit from an economic collapse along with an open extened debate about purpose in this new century.

Or keep being the Roman Empire. The priveleged there had a great run for a time.

The Visigoths sacked Rome then retreated, but it was a fatal wound. Maybe that's what happened on 9/11 and we don't know it yet.

I didn't and won't watch the debates. It's cheaper to ignore them than pay doctor fees and prescriptions to contol high blood pressure. They're lying anyway. After the election the debate tapes get burned and the winner does whatever he can get away with and more.

I don't believe I'm going to vote for either man.

blackrebel

09-27-2008, 10:43 AM

If I wasnt so busy, I would have bet 2 weeks ago that you were going to have this postion on the debate.

Your partisan bigotry is as predictable as the sunrise and sunset. Oh, wait, we forgot that the network postion was predictable also.

Talking to my Obama friends with open minds, they saw a different debate, as Obama not as knowledgable as people want to portray him as. Side by side they saw the men and admitted that they saw the men thru the eyes of the MSM not on their own.

No wonder McCain wanted to bail, it was like watching my grandfathers kvetch. No strike that. My grandfathers were essentially nice guys—McCain is so essentially not a nice guy. This fellow, McCain, who has the world by the ***, is just another angry old white-guy. The only thing missing is the white beard to hide the fat jowls and driving the beat-to-hell, faded, butterscotch-yellow, Datsun pick-up truck with a Bush/Cheney sticker. He has thirteen cars, none of which, I’ll just bet, is a faded, etc., etc.
 <o></o>
McCain was dismissive, insulting and contemptuous of Obama and never looked his way when making snide and snarky comments about him. Even conservative commentators noted his rudeness. This may account for the fact that the internals of the debate polls indicate that women, by a significant majority, found Obama favorable and McCain unfavorable. Many more people asserted they had a more favorable impression of Obama from the debate than they had for McCain. Who wants a glowering, hunched-up, angry old white guy preaching at them—most have had enough of that when asking dad for the car keys!
 <o></o>
Why in the world would he keep invoking the specters of Reagan and Nixon? That might play well with the angry old white-guys in their compact pick-ups, but most of us see Nixon as a perfidious bastard who escaped impeachment by resignation, and Reagan as the primary architect of the deregulation resulting in our higher monthly electric bills and substantially contributing to the current economic catastrophe. Why raise those ugly reference points in people’s minds? Good grief?
 <o></o>
This was supposed to be McCain’s strong suit; foreign policy and national security, however it was Obama who had the facts and outlined a program for the future while McCain self-indulgently basked in Vietnam era and Cold War hot-button talking points. One wanted to shout, “John there are several generations of voting-age adults out there watching this for whom Vietnam and the Cold War are vague memories of high-school mid-term essay assignments. There are some other, really dangerous, things going on. Come into the 21st century with the rest of us.”
 <o></o>
Actually, Obama did tell him that when he mentioned a nuke in a suitcase!
 <o></o>
Last night, I was a little disappointed that Obama did not take the opportunity to “dope-slap” McCain on his misrepresentations and lies. And, I felt he was a bit generous in acknowledging there were points of agreement between them. My personal preference is to go for the jugular and have blood spraying the walls.
 <o></o>
But after a good night’s sleep, some reflection, and a quick review of the polls, I’ve changed my mind—and so have others. Obama came across as a decent, respectful, caring and knowledgeable man and most women do not really care for personal attack and contentious argument. If, as most pundits say, white women are the key to this election, then Obama’s presidential bearing compared to just another angry, old white guy carried the night!

Boreas

09-27-2008, 10:56 AM

Thanks for your thoughts MikeS. This comment The U.S. doesn't need to control every country, every citizen, and every piece of real estate. It might be this society could benefit from an economic collapse along with an open extened debate about purpose in this new century. could be bang on, though controversial. A good crisis can cause some regrouping, and re-evaluation of values and direction. Hopefully if this were to occur, growth rather than death would be the result.

blackrebel, did you watch the debate? What are your thoughts? I am interested in hearing from the "other side".

LamontCranston

09-27-2008, 11:12 AM

A good crisis can cause some regrouping, and re-evaluation of values and direction. Hopefully if this were to occur, growth rather than death would be the result. It works in nature. As a Canadian you can appreciate that a long cold winter isn't necessarily bad. Plants, animals and people all come back refreshed and stronger than before...

I think the debates are more about "winning the night" and bouncing in the immediate after-polls than they are about persuasion or definition of position.

Instead of a debate on current events, I'd like to hear each candidate explain his philosophy on the separation of legislative, judicial and executive branches with examples of which issues fall where and why (understanding the job he's seeking), the balance between federal and state rights (an issue so important it lead to Civil War), and the role of the U.S. in the world (like a new Truman Doctrine).

.. and if one of the debaters uses the words Democrat or Republican, they get a poke with a cattle prod and drop through the trap door.

Boreas

09-27-2008, 11:30 AM

I like your thinking Mike. I agree. One of my teachers used to say that without rain, we'd have a desert. In fact, we have an environmental crisis due to a lack of extreme cold weather in these parts. The Pine Beetle is eating a lot of BC forests. I have also seen people grow through crises in my professional life. I have experienced it in my personal life.

Instead of a debate on current events, I'd like to hear each candidate explain his philosophy on the separation of legislative, judicial and executive branches with examples of which issues fall where and why (understanding the job he's seeking), the balance between federal and state rights (an issue so important it lead to Civil War), and the role of the U.S. in the world (like a new Truman Doctrine).

.. and if one of the debaters uses the words Democrat or Republican, they get a poke with a cattle prod and drop through the trap door.

Kind of reminds me of AA's value of "principles before personalities". Would that the political world adopt that view!

Qikdraw

09-27-2008, 01:00 PM

If I wasnt so busy, I would have bet 2 weeks ago that you were going to have this postion on the debate.

I beleive we could have all predicted your position too.

Your partisan bigotry is as predictable as the sunrise and sunset. Oh, wait, we forgot that the network postion was predictable also.

Yes the fabled 'liberal media' line. Anytime a republican is not on top, its labeled as a 'liberal media', when it attacks democrats its being 'fair and balanced'. Yes I see where the partisan bigotry is coming from now...

Talking to my Obama friends with open minds, they saw a different debate, as Obama not as knowledgable as people want to portray him as. Side by side they saw the men and admitted that they saw the men thru the eyes of the MSM not on their own.

Which is why people need to watch it on C-Span and not through networks. And honestly I do not trust your retelling of your 'Obama friends' veiws. You have proven you are all for republicans and as such calls into question how much your bias pushes your message. Granted you can say the same about others here, as you have.

Really I believe it comes down to the independant voter, and according to a number of polls Obama won the independant voter, mostly because McCain was a grumpy old man. I mean here is a guy who claims to reach out to the other side and he won't even look at Obama! He could not even hide his distain! And this is a guy to run the country? We've had 8 years of partisian bickering, and it does not look like McCain is going to stop that. Obama, with his agreeing with McCain on certain issues, has shown he can act far more presidential than McCain. If McCain wants to pull in those independant voters he is going to have to act nicer.

usmc1

09-27-2008, 01:01 PM

If I wasnt so busy, I would have bet 2 weeks ago that you were going to have this postion on the debate.

Your partisan bigotry is as predictable as the sunrise and sunset. Oh, wait, we forgot that the network postion was predictable also.

Talking to my Obama friends with open minds, they saw a different debate, as Obama not as knowledgable as people want to portray him as. Side by side they saw the men and admitted that they saw the men thru the eyes of the MSM not on their own.

Partisan bigotry? Where the eff do you get off calling me a bigot? You know nothing of me, or the work I do. Of course, I'm partisan, so are you. So, are a lot of people, I presented my views of the debate as I saw them, and as the post debate polls resulted. No bigotry there.

Your main claim around here is to periodically drop in and make outrageous claims about other people's faults while wildly calling attention to your own defects in the most preposterous and inflammatory way.

But, that aside, let me cite the following to allay your fears of my "bigotry"

2 quick polls give Obama edge in debate The Democratic presidential nominee gets post-Mississippi bump
The Associated Press
updated 1:59 p.m. CT, Sat., Sept. 27, 2008
<script language="javascript"> function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) { var n = document.getElementById("udtD"); if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) { var dt = new DateTime(); pdt = dt.T2D(pdt); if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,(('false'.toLowerCase()=='false')?false :true));} } } UpdateTimeStamp('633581387731470000');</script>
WASHINGTON - A pair of one-night polls gave Barack Obama a clear edge over John McCain in their first presidential debate.

Fifty-one percent said Obama, the Democrat, did a better job in Friday night's faceoff while 38 percent preferred the Republican McCain, according to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. survey of adults.

Obama was widely considered more intelligent, likable and in touch with peoples' problems, and by modest margins was seen as the stronger leader and more sincere. Most said it was McCain who spent more time attacking his opponent.

About six in 10 said each did a better job than expected. Seven in 10 said each seemed capable of being president.

In a CBS News poll of people not committed to a candidate, 39 percent said Obama won the debate, 24 percent said McCain and 37 percent called it a tie. Twice as many said Obama understands their needs than said so about McCain.

Seventy-eight percent said McCain is prepared to be president, about the same proportion of uncommitted voters as said so before the debate. Sixty percent said Obama is ready — a lower score than McCain, but a solid 16-percentage-point improvement from before the debate.

In another Obama advantage in the CBS poll, far more said their image of him had improved as a result of the debate than said it had worsened. More also said their view of McCain had gotten better rather than worse, but by a modest margin.

The CNN poll involved telephone interviews with 524 adults who watched the debate and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. The CBS survey involved online interviews with 483 uncommitted voters who saw the debate and had an error margin of plus or minus 4 points. It was conducted by Knowledge Networks, which initially selected the respondents by telephone.

Both polls were conducted Friday night.

Polls conducted on one night can be less reliable than surveys conducted over several nights because they only include the views of people available that particular evening.

jon71

09-27-2008, 01:08 PM

Boreas, I bet wikipedia could give you any terms you didn't get. I'll start with the two you mentioned. Have you heard the term "bringing home the bacon". It's a variation of the same thing. Way back when pork would be shipped in large barrels. When a politician made sure that money was being spent in his state/district he was "bringing home the bacon" or engaging in "pork barrel" spending. I don't know if it was even meant as a negative originally but nowadays it means too much spending. Honestly I think it's more nuanced than that. If a politician gets spending to repair failing roads and bridges, build a new elementary school, get a new fire truck for the fire dept., these are all good and likely necessary things. When the spending is to create a Lawrence Welk museum, establish a historical site for President McKinley's in-laws or require the pentagon to buy tons of anthracite coal they haven't had a use for in 50 years (all real life examples) it is the worst of pork barrel spending. Earmarks are a variation of the same thing. When a budget is being created a politician may specifically put in a special provision such as a few lines saying that $100m can only be spent on a bridge to an island with 50 inhabitants and for no other purpose. This is in comparison to putting the money in the transportation dept. budget to spend how they deem wisest (or not spending it at all and doing the taxpayers a favor).
I hope this helps. If wikipedia doesn't have your answers either ask on the forum or p.m. me. I was a pol. sci. major and consider myself at least reasonably knowledgeable if not wonkish.

Qikdraw

09-27-2008, 01:09 PM

I only caught a little of the debate. To be honest, some of it went over my head in some respects. I attribute that to cultural differences. :) We do not use terms such as "ear marks" and "pork barrel" here, and I don't fully understand their meaning, so when those terms were flying around too much, they might as well have been speaking Greek! :o

You have a problem with speaking Greek? *sigh* I never knew this about you dear... :(

'Earmarks' and 'pork barrel' are things that are added to a bigger bill. Something like a military spending bill that everybody knows will get passed, will get things added on like, a bridge to nowhere. Basically legislators will try and add things onto bills that will help their state, or more likely, their big donors.

As Obama said according to last years budget the US spend 18 Billion on earmarks. A large number to be sure, but in the garnd scheme of the US's budget, its not that much. It needs to be fixed for sure, but I believe McCain is fixating on a small issue to make himself look better rather than focus on tougher issues.

Boreas

09-27-2008, 02:05 PM

Thanks jon and Qikdraw. I have a better understanding now. Of course we would have something similar in Canada, just expressed differently. Is that something you can comment on Qikdraw, given that you have lived in both worlds?

BTW, I have nothing against speaking Greek. :rolleyes: It is just that it is useless for me, since I do not speak the language. :o There is no point in talking to someone in a language some does not know. :)

Which reminds me. Canada and the US alledgedly speak the same language. There are nuances that are so different as to make communication difficult. Try asking for directions to Highway 2 in Maine, as I did years ago. You'll get blank stares. :surprised:

jon71

09-27-2008, 02:21 PM

Boreas

09-27-2008, 02:23 PM

You're welcome. I meant to add that I think the term "earmark" originates from people folding down the corners of a page of a book, i.e. "dogear" them to keep their place. I've been a bit of a book worm and think of things like that as a minor sacrilige

Actually, that is how I had interpretted it too. Make sense.

I always use a bookmark for the same reason. :)

Qikdraw

09-27-2008, 02:56 PM

Thanks jon and Qikdraw. I have a better understanding now. Of course we would have something similar in Canada, just expressed differently. Is that something you can comment on Qikdraw, given that you have lived in both worlds?

Honestly not really. I never paid much attention to Cdn policitcs when I lived there. I know I should have, but I just didn't. :(

BTW, I have nothing against speaking Greek. :rolleyes: It is just that it is useless for me, since I do not speak the language. :o There is no point in talking to someone in a language some does not know. :)

I know... I was just poking at you. :stick:

Which reminds me. Canada and the US alledgedly speak the same language. There are nuances that are so different as to make communication difficult. Try asking for directions to Highway 2 in Maine, as I did years ago. You'll get blank stares. :surprised:

Well that's Maine. Try doing the same thing in Newfoundland! :p

Qikdraw

09-27-2008, 02:58 PM

I meant to add that I think the term "earmark" originates from people folding down the corners of a page of a book, i.e. "dogear" them to keep their place. I've been a bit of a book worm and think of things like that as a minor sacrilige

Yes, I feel the same way. My wife used to do tat to books, and even worse bend back the pages she'd read around so she could hold the book with one hand. When I started letting her read some of my books I told her she had to read with a bookmark, and not fold the pages around the back like she did. Now she treats books better. :D (she likes my books) :)

Illinois59

09-27-2008, 05:57 PM

I'll start of by saying I do not support McCain so you know where I stand. What I find most disturbing about the debate was not anything in the debate but the way McCain handled himself before the debate. McCain threw out the story about the bailout negotiations being such a big issue of national importance that he just had to suspend his campaign and not be available for the debate to fly to Washington to put in this 2 cents worth. I have seen or heard nothing about Obama or McCain being invited to participate in the bailout negotiations. Neither Obama or McCain are President of the U.S. Obama more or less said "life goes on, lets have this scheduled debate" and McCain puts on his Superman outfit and says the rest of the world has to come to a stop so he can save it. It is very clear to me that Obama's position that he would show up for the debate no matter what McCain said or did was the right thing to do. McCain flip-flopped on his decision to skip the debate after public opinion made it clear that he screwed up. I don't know about you but if I have a choice between somebody who can think things out and somebody who can just provide knee-jerk decisions, I'll always take the person who can think.

usmc1

09-28-2008, 06:01 AM

While his campaign was "suspended" and while he was claiming finding a solution to the economic crises was more important than the debate and that, therefore, he would would forgo the debate; McPhalin was preparing an ad claiming he had "won the debate".

Alas, too bad, so sad, no one else sees it that way. Here, from electoralvote.com...

And one thing to remember and factor into any McCain/Obama poll is that Obama always starts with a 6% deficit to overcome due to incipient racism.

"... Polling data suggests otherwise. A CBS poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/26/politics/horserace/entry4482028.shtml) using random sampling showed 39% saw Obama as the winner and 24% see McCain as the winner.

An Inside Advantage poll (http://www5.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/sep/26/obama-edges-mccain-ca-poll/) reported a virtual tie, with 42% saying Obama won and 41% saying McCain won.

An Opinion Research poll (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html) done for CNN gave Obama the win, 51% to 38%, with men splitting evenly and women going for Obama 2 to 1. However, the sample had a slight Democratic bias.

A poll (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/27/Early_polls_call_Obama_winner_of_debate/UPI-45301222489321/) on CNN's Website with 80,500 respondents gave Obama the victory 67% to 28%. An NBC survey, which drew 291,000 responses gave the victory to Obama 51% to 35%.

Democracy Corps ran a 45-person focus group (http://www.democracycorps.com/focus/2008/09/first-presidential-debate-obama-makes-important-personal-and-national-security-gains/) in St. Louis. The group was heavily tilted towards the Republicans, with 33% identifying as Republicans, 27% identifying as Democrats, and the rest independents. The group as a whole voted for Bush over Kerry by a 2-to-1 margin in 2004. Nevertheless, by a 38% to 27% margin, they felt that Obama won the debate.

All in all, Obama did what he had to do. He convinced a majority of the voters that he can handle foreign affairs at least as well as McCain, maybe better. All he really needed was a tie, because virtually every poll has shown that large majorities support Obama on domestic issues."

And then there's MediaCurves which includes polling by cell phone and web:

http://www.mediacurves.com/images/image1.gif
http://www.mediacurves.com/images/image2.gif
http://www.mediacurves.com/images/image3.gif
http://www.mediacurves.com/images/image4.gif
http://www.mediacurves.com/images/image5.gif
http://www.mediacurves.com/images/image6.gif
http://www.mediacurves.com/images/image7.gif
http://www.mediacurves.com/images/image8.gif
http://www.mediacurves.com/images/image9.gif
http://www.mediacurves.com/images/debate-mclink.gif (http://www.mediacurves.com/home.cfm)

Naturist Mark

09-28-2008, 06:51 AM

All in all, Obama did what he had to do. He convinced a majority of the voters that he can handle foreign affairs at least as well as McCain, maybe better. All he really needed was a tie, because virtually every poll has shown that large majorities support Obama on domestic issues."

I wish that were true. By my reckoning Obama has to win by at least a 10% margin to overcome the same sorts of election rigging we've seen in the last two presidential elections and which by all signs will be as bad or worse this time (does this (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/23/palm_beach_ballots_down_for_th.html) sound familiar?).

I'm not seeing a big enough margin for Obama yet.

And you can bet that the Supreme Court will throw anything even approaching a close election McCain's way since the procedures provided in the Constitution to decide close presidential elections were invalidated by the court in 2000.

-Mark

blackrebel

09-28-2008, 06:56 AM

Partisan bigotry? Where the eff do you get off calling me a bigot? You know nothing of me, or the work I do. Of course, I'm partisan, so are you. So, are a lot of people, I presented my views of the debate as I saw them, and as the post debate polls resulted. No bigotry there.

BS. All you do is spew your lift wing bile. If anyone with an R by their name says a thing, you b*tch. If they dont, you b*tch.

There is a diff in being a partisian and a partisan bigot. The diff is me and you. You will knock non-stop your opponents while I will knock AND praise BOTH SIDES.

Bigots will never admit their bigotry because they are not bigots in their own eyes. Sort of like those who dont think that they are racists because they are not burning a cross, or shouting racial comments. They only whisper these comments under their breath and ignore their neighbor with the cross and gasoline can in their garage.

The fact is, CFC is non-stop a liberal bashing board of you people and it get's old. These stupid posts that even keep talking about conservatives can't be nudists, and conservatives are against nudists are childish, closed minded and divide us.

Navigator

09-28-2008, 08:26 AM

BS. All you do is spew your lift wing bile. If anyone with an R by their name says a thing, you b*tch. If they dont, you b*tch.

There is a diff in being a partisian and a partisan bigot. The diff is me and you. You will knock non-stop your opponents while I will knock AND praise BOTH SIDES.

Bigots will never admit their bigotry because they are not bigots in their own eyes. Sort of like those who dont think that they are racists because they are not burning a cross, or shouting racial comments. They only whisper these comments under their breath and ignore their neighbor with the cross and gasoline can in their garage.

The fact is, CFC is non-stop a liberal bashing board of you people and it get's old. These stupid posts that even keep talking about conservatives can't be nudists, and conservatives are against nudists are childish, closed minded and divide us.

I dunno Blackrebel...I'm not sure I see that in this thread myself. I read back through the thread when I saw how angry you were and I just don't see bigotry.

The actual fact is, all polls are showing that a big majority of the public thought Obama won the debate. I'm sure you've heard this before...and I don't mean to add to your anger...but you're entitled to your opinion and political preference...but not to your facts. Facts are very solid things and...these days...a lot of facts have a liberal bias. Discussing them is not an indication of bigotry.

Also, I haven't seen anything is this thread, or others that I can remember, that said that conservatives can't be or aren't nudists or are against nudism. I can tell you from personal experience that a large majority of the membership of the nudist resort we attend are conservatives as are most of our nudist friends.

usmc1

09-28-2008, 01:16 PM

I wish that were true. By my reckoning Obama has to win by at least a 10% margin to overcome the same sorts of election rigging we've seen in the last two presidential elections and which by all signs will be as bad or worse this time (does this (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/23/palm_beach_ballots_down_for_th.html) sound familiar?).

I'm not seeing a big enough margin for Obama yet.

And you can bet that the Supreme Court will throw anything even approaching a close election McCain's way since the procedures provided in the Constitution to decide close presidential elections were invalidated by the court in 2000.

-Mark

Well. Four separate tracking polls show Barack Obama ahead of John McCain nationally. His leads are Hotline (Obama +5), Gallup (Obama +5), Rasmussen (Obama +6), and Research 2000 (Obama +6), a surprising amount of agreement. All the data was collected before the debate. In the next few days we will see what happens to Obama's lead and that will be the real verdict on the debate.

And Gallup daily just put it outside the margin of error at 50 - 42. Which really reflects a much, much stronger Obama preference than is actually shown.

And you can add an additional 6% to each of those for the racism overcome. So, the question becomes will the racists vote simply to keep him out? I think not all of them, so his edge is more than it appears. Also, I think the cell phone demographic is way under sampled.

And, we've got money, muscle and lawyers assigned to places like Ohio and St. Louis.

And, a tie would go to a Dem congress not the supremes.

Nugent

09-28-2008, 02:53 PM

Oh was that M'Cain debating with Obama.... I could have sworn it was Bush.

Owen

usmc1

09-28-2008, 06:07 PM

BS. All you do is spew your lift wing bile. If anyone with an R by their name says a thing, you b*tch. If they dont, you b*tch.

There is a diff in being a partisian and a partisan bigot. The diff is me and you. You will knock non-stop your opponents while I will knock AND praise BOTH SIDES.

Bigots will never admit their bigotry because they are not bigots in their own eyes. Sort of like those who dont think that they are racists because they are not burning a cross, or shouting racial comments. They only whisper these comments under their breath and ignore their neighbor with the cross and gasoline can in their garage.

The fact is, CFC is non-stop a liberal bashing board of you people and it get's old. These stupid posts that even keep talking about conservatives can't be nudists, and conservatives are against nudists are childish, closed minded and divide us.

Again, I just don't see how it is that you are permitted to call me a bigot, and then come back and compare me to crypto-racists. You complain of a liberal bias, I see it differently. Nacktman or nudebushwalker never called anyone a bigot or racist yet they are permantly banned. About the worst thing said was to suggest that someone was an idiot or a troll.

Repeatedly, persons calling themselves conservatives engage in this disruptive distracting behavior dragging threads off topic, or throwing just enough provocative words around inciting a response to get a thread closed. And, on-and-on that goes, but yet they remain, and one-by-one the liberal voices get shut down.

So, I, and others do not see the liberal bias of which you complain.

But, calling me a bigot and comparing me to racists in a succession of posts which have absolutely nothing at all to do with the topic of this thread is really quite childish of you. You owe me an apology! I am none of those things.

Naturist Mark

09-28-2008, 07:30 PM

Well. Four separate tracking polls show Barack Obama ahead of John McCain nationally. ... much stronger Obama preference than is actually shown. ...And, we've got money, muscle and lawyers assigned to places like Ohio and St. Louis.

And, a tie would go to a Dem congress not the supremes.

I like your optimism, hope it isn't misplaced.

The Constitution required the House of Representatives to resolve electoral college disputes in 2000, but the court would not allow it. Why would an even more neo-con heavy court allow a Democratic majority House decide a disputed election in 2008? It isn't like they feel a need to follow the Constitution anymore.

We had the lawyers in place in Ohio in 2004 ... (in good news: it looks like (http://www.opednews.com/articles/Explosive-Events-Happening-by-Velvet-Revolution-080920-704.html) the prosecution for the rigging of the 2004 election in Ohio is proceeding.) Meanwhile Ohio is still a hotbed (http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2008/3201) of election rigging activities.

-Mark

Skinview

09-29-2008, 12:10 AM

Again, I just don't see how it is that you are permitted to call me a bigot, and then come back and compare me to crypto-racists. You complain of a liberal bias, I see it differently. Nacktman or nudebushwalker never called anyone a bigot or racist yet they are permantly banned. About the worst thing said was to suggest that someone was an idiot or a troll.
This is a typically abusive post by Nacktman:
Sad to see a thread that was holding to a good and productive discourse derailed by an ignorant, self loathing moron but it has. This is reminds me of another such lunatic we had to darken these forums

Repeatedly, persons calling themselves conservatives engage in this disruptive distracting behavior dragging threads off topic, or throwing just enough provocative words around inciting a response to get a thread closed. And, on-and-on that goes, but yet they remain, and one-by-one the liberal voices get shut down.And KirkOntario got shut down too.

So, I, and others do not see the liberal bias of which you complain.Look at the thread titles in the open forum! Look at the number of liberal, no, far left extremist posters here! There is usually only one conservative fencing with several liberals on a thread.

But, calling me a bigot and comparing me to racists in a succession of posts which have absolutely nothing at all to do with the topic of this thread is really quite childish of you. You owe me an apology! I am none of those things.

I have no reason to think you are a racist...

usmc1

09-29-2008, 05:04 AM

USA Today/Gallop Poll: Obama Did Better in First Debate

Obama Scores Big on Proposal to Change the Country

MARK MEMMOTT and JILL LAWRENCE

September 28, 2008—

A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows 46% of people who watched Friday night's presidential debate say Democrat Barack Obama did a better job than Republican John McCain; 34% said McCain did better.

Obama scored even better -- 52%-35% -- when debate-watchers were asked which candidate offered the best proposals for change to solve the country's problems.

More than six in 10 people or 63% in the one-day poll, taken Saturday, said they watched the first faceoff in Oxford, Miss. For those 701 people, the margin of error was +/- 4 percentage points.

The poll suggested the debate was to some extent a wash for McCain: 21% of those who watched say it gave them a more favorable view of him, 21% say less favorable and 56% say it didn't change their opinion much.

Three in 10 said their opinion of Obama became more favorable after seeing the debate, compared to 14% who said less favorable and 54% who said it didn't make much difference.

More than one-third of viewers, or 37%, said they had less confidence in McCain to fix economic problems after seeing the debate; 23% said more. For Obama, the survey results were 34% more confidence, 26% less.

Neither candidate broke away on national security and foreign policy. About a third of viewers said they had more confidence in each man on that front after the debate, and slightly less in each case said they had less confidence.

NatureFred

09-29-2008, 08:50 AM

For what it's worth, my wife and I (independents both) felt that both men did better than we expected in the debate. We felt that Obama performed slightly better than McCain.

Both of us felt the high point for Obama was when he responded to McCain's claim that Obama had voted against funding for US troops by saying that McCain had voted against a funding bill that contained a timeline for withdrawal, while Obama had voted against one that did not--their differences on the bills had to do with timelines, not with funding the troops. This is the kind of reasonable discourse we are looking for.

I don't recall whether my wife identified a specific high point for McCain. Speaking strictly for myself, I didn't see a "you go, John!" moment. He was just more controlled and articulate than I had come to expect from the speeches I've seen. He obviously knows a lot about foreign governments.

I felt McCain's repeated statements of "when I was in {insert foreign capital here}" were a bit overdone. There are plenty of folks in the House and Senate who've had the opportunity to travel to foreign capitals and meet foreign leaders whom I wouldn't trust to carry a bucket of water across the street.

What I would judge by is what are the principles upon which you believe our country should act in relation to foreign govenments--and both men conveyed those.

Qikdraw

09-29-2008, 09:45 AM

I don't recall whether my wife identified a specific high point for McCain. Speaking strictly for myself, I didn't see a "you go, John!" moment. He was just more controlled and articulate than I had come to expect from the speeches I've seen. He obviously knows a lot about foreign governments.

Not a high point for McCain, but one thing I agreed with him on. Cost Plus contracts need to go. That is a huge drain on the military budget. However I do not see McCain actually getting rid of them, I believe that is just a talking point with him, which is why I do not consider it a high point.

brazhunter

09-29-2008, 10:14 AM

I wish that were true. By my reckoning Obama has to win by at least a 10% margin to overcome the same sorts of election rigging we've seen in the last two presidential elections...
You mean dead people voting for dems and districts in big cities voting at 110% of registered voters at rates of 99-100% for dem candidates?

usmc1

09-29-2008, 11:11 AM

You mean dead people voting for dems and districts in big cities voting at 110% of registered voters at rates of 99-100% for dem candidates?
Mark, if he desires, will nail you with documentation for his assertions.

Now, for about the third or fourth time, I call on you to source yet another outrageous claim.

As before, you won't because you can't.

Naturist Mark

09-29-2008, 07:24 PM

You mean dead people voting for dems and districts in big cities voting at 110% of registered voters at rates of 99-100% for dem candidates?

LOL

First you need to understand the difference between voter fraud and election fraud.

Republicans howl about voter fraud and use it as an excuse to shut down voter registration drives, purge voter rolls, and increase bureaucratic red tape with restrictive voter ID requirements. However these are remedies to a nearly non-existent problem (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_republican_war_on_voting). Despite a 4 year long intensive anti fraud initiative, the Justice Department was unable to identify a single example of a person impersonating another voter. There have been a total of 38 people prosecuted for voting illegally in the last 6 years. Yet this avalanche of voter fraud has been used to justify the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of voters - such as the 300,000 Ken Blackwell had stricken from the voter rolls in just 3 Ohio counties before the 2006 gubernatorial election he ran as Secretary of State and in which he was the Republican candidate for governor (it wasn't enough).

As for those 100plus percent precincts - that really happened in Ohio in 2004. Except they were in 29 Suburban Cuyahoga county precincts (http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/10/the_ohio_factor_did_homeland_security) where Bush got more votes than registered voters. But that wasn't voter impersonation - that was from election fraud in the counting of votes - all together there were 93 thousand more votes than voters in those precincts - which means that the number of 'added' votes were probably well over 200,000 in Cuyahoga County alone - more than enough to account for Bush's 'victory'. By the way, 2 Cuyahoga County election officials were sentenced to prison for election fraud (not "voter fraud") committed during that election, and all the rest were sacked when Jennifer Brunner became Ohio's new Secretary of State.

But I understand the confusion, those over 100% precincts were in a county that went overwhelmingly for Kerry, so the 'extra' votes for Bush didn't change the local results - but they did count for Bush in the State as a whole. It only makes sense to hide fake Republican votes in a forest of Democratic votes since it doesn't matter where they are counted.

-Mark

ki4kxq

09-29-2008, 09:46 PM

Would really like to know why the Dems think that it is so horrible that voters would need to show ID. Good grief, you can't even buy a pack of smokes without showing ID. The fact that the left throws such a fit over something that should be a no brainer, just makes the rest of their claims of voter fraud seem disingenuous at best.

The common cry from the left against ID's seem to be that the poor and elderly are the ones that would be effected. Most senior citizens, even the poorest of the poor, have some form of photo state ID. They must. If their SS check is direct deposited, they must have ID at the bank. If the check is mailed, they must have ID to cash it. Most folks must show ID to cash any form of government assistance so the libs argument just doesn't wash. Makes it look like they want voter and election fraud when they won't even agree on something this simple.

jon71

09-29-2008, 11:30 PM

ki4kxq you are being disingenuous at best. When someone asks for I.D. the vast majority of us, myself included, pull out our drivers license. Where does that leave people too poor to own a car or elderly people who don't drive whether for health reasons or whatever. My grandmother has actually never had a driver's license at any point in her life (she's in her 90's). Yes other forms of I.D. do exist, but it's one more hurdle, one more burden that is specifically designed to impact two Democratic voting blocks. Avoiding this pointless burden does not make voter fraud even 1% more likely, that "argument" is completely bogus and everyone here knows it. Republicans just want to make it harder for honest American's to vote.

ki4kxq

09-30-2008, 12:12 AM

Again, that is nothing but bull. Not everybody has a drivers license, but those that don't almost always have a state issued ID. Again, driving has nothing to do with having ID. Voting is an important responsibility. I don't think it's too much to ask someone to prove who they are when they get to the polling place.

Not that it matters to you and others that think it's a burden, most states that voted in the requirement, also made provisions in the law that would bring mobile state ID stations to those who truly could not make it into a license bureau. Again, that's a moot point because most folks need some form of ID to even go to the bank or get a check cashed. My 93 year old grandmother didn't drive anymore when she died, however, she still had ID because she needed it to do other things.

jon71

09-30-2008, 03:12 AM

My point is that this is an unnecessary complication for no more reason than creating an unnecessary complication and people recognize it for just that.

usmc1

09-30-2008, 04:26 AM

My point is that this is an unnecessary complication for no more reason than creating an unnecessary complication and people recognize it for just that.

And it is a very good point. Cost, distance, and time are all obstacles for getting a picture ID for working people without transportation other than local bus lines. For some older or disabled people add the physical restraints.

Many states permit (ted) letters from utilities, the SSA, and other established entities to serve as secondary ID. Republicans, realizing that those persons from those demographics are more likely to vote Democratic out of self interest are eager to erect legalized, extra-legal and illegal barriers and obstacles to their voting.The requirement of a state-issued picture ID is one of those.

What our Belle of The Piney Woods doesn't acknowledge is that those state-issued picture driver's licenses with one's Social Security number on them is a marvelous tool for keeping tabs on someone. Pretty much a "national ID card". Talk about handing power over to the government. You'd think someone calling themselves conservative would be more finely attuned to this potential for abuse of individual liberty.

And she is dead wrong about needing a driver's license to transact business from one's checking account. All it takes is a debit card.

Boreas

09-30-2008, 06:52 AM

We must show ID to vote in Canada. I believe it must be photo ID, but then I have a driver's license, which I use, and perhaps I do not have to think further than that in this regard. There was an issue with muslim women who cover their faces being asked to show their faces at the polling booth. There was a great fuss made, even though most of these women had no problem showing their faces to vote.

I have a big problem though, with the suggestion there is huge voter fraud given the controversy over election fraud in the US. Your last election had international monitors (scrutineers?) overseeing the election. Not something usually done for such a country as yours.

*Edit: Canadians must show either one photo ID to vote, or two non-photo ID's. The purpose is to proove that the voter is over 18.

Qikdraw

09-30-2008, 11:27 AM

I have a big problem though, with the suggestion there is huge voter fraud given the controversy over election fraud in the US. Your last election had international monitors (scrutineers?) overseeing the election. Not something usually done for such a country as yours.

Well as Mark has pointed out Ohio was proven to be a stolen state. Even the GAO has come out and said so. So its not a conspiracy at all.

Its also not a conspiracy that the McCain campaign sent out voter registration to people pointing them to the wrong area to vote it. Its no conspiracy that republicans have been purging the voting lists using questionable logic.

Whats shocking is that we have one political party that is actively trying to subvert the democratic process. It is every American's right to vote, and taking that away because you don't like the way they vote is so anti-American it should be treasonous.