The First Presidential Debate

[dave]

The Repugnicants vs The Demagogues

McCain whipped Obama's hide... Wonder how that happened? The Press is on Obama's side and the questions seemed to be tilted in Obama's favor and everybody is so tired of the Repugnicant point of view, yet it was Obama who advocated starting about three new wars and couldn't come up with one single program that he would cut to pay for the Demagogue's $700 Billion payoff for the Wall Street Crooks.

How could that happen? I've been hearing that Obama is the Savior of America, what's with that?

I'm thinking that McCain won't last the time automatically making Sarah Palin president.

So, the real choice is between a Black Man or a Woman. Either way something new is going to happen.

So Next Thursday's debate should be the decider. Can Sarah Palin make Joe Biden back down. Can she handle the job. Remember that Joe Biden is very different from Obama. He has been there a long time and is not considered main stream Demo.

The current group of Republicans are about where the Democrats were when I was young. The Democrats are outright Socialists. Socialists believe that the government should own the factories and that people should have everything that they need to live. (No socialist ever says "live well." Many Democrats will say that.)

Now, the economy just cratered because Wall Street types figured out that they could "short" a stock without having to put the money to cover what they were buying into escrow. They never had the courage to do these "naked shorts" before because the market never moved fast enough so that was safe to do. (i.e. the bill would come before the market went down enough to make a big profit.) But the huge Insurance companies and Banks were destroyed by the huge loans on falling property values all came due and the "day traders" saw an opportunity to make huge "naked shorts". The Banks and Insurance companies were forced into selling their stock to the day traders at the depreciated value (because that's the way the rules are.) and suddenly the banks and insurance companies were bankrupt. Actually, they were bankrupt all along, but were hiding that by holding worthless mortgages. When they had to sell the depreciated stock to the day traders so they could sell it to the people who actually owned the stock and had to buy it at the price that it was before being "shorted", The day traders made a huge amount of money, the people who owned the overvalued stock lost their shirts, and the banks and insurance companies were left with only worthless loans in their portfolio, so they went bankrupt or were sold for pennies on the dollar. This all happened faster than you could read this explanation.

It was pretty clear that one or both of the Presidential candidates last night still doesn't understand what just happened.

So, you are really voting for either Obama or Palin.

[Kelsey]

I just think it's funny that all of Obama's "cool" plans just went down the drain with all of this economy crap. I was wondering before two weeks ago where he was planning to get all of the money for his plans. Now I'm really wondering.

And I don't buy that McCain is about to kick the bucket thing. His mother's still alive and kicking for god's sake. But I adore Sarah Palin, so I don't care either way. I can't wait for the vice presidential election, because I think she's going to surprise a lot of people, and just crucify Biden (anyone else think he looks like a creeper?)

McCain/Palin has my vote, and there was never a question.

[Joly]

Palin is anti-abortion, pro-guns and a bible basher.
I'd prefer Obama but I'm certainly no expert on American Politics.

[dave]

Originally Posted by Joly

Palin is anti-abortion, pro-guns and a bible basher.
I'd prefer Obama but I'm certainly no expert on American Politics.

Well, let's see. You make three Euro-points and then apologize for having that opinion. That's not a good start for your side...

1) She's pro-gun, and you hold that against her. To you it's reprehensible. For me it is a requirement. Our country was founded by scared farmers and Religious nuts who were fed up with being hung in the city square by British/French/Spanish/Dutch Aristocracy for trivial insults. You guys don't seem to be doing that much any more... Seems you learned your lesson. However, you have turned into a continent of wusses. You need to bring back some of those Australians (though they seem to be going soft lately.)

2) She's anti-abortion. So am I, so what? I really don't believe that you can turn back that particular clock. I suspect that it is racist to say anything more about this. In fact, because the various racial birth rates are evidence that being pro-abortion is always a racist stance, I can't even talk about this without being considered a racist and an asshole. So whenever a person talks about abortion they are really talking about race and any response is not Politically Correct. (Start with the fact that the white race is not replenishing itself and any discussion about killing babies is automatically a discussion about killing more brown/black babies than white. I knew that if I broke it down far enough you would eventually understand. So, any stance on Abortion is Racist.)

3) She's a Bible basher. (I think you mean Bible Thumper. A Bible basher would be someone who "bashes" the bible.) You have a problem with someone who actually believes and practices the morality taught in the Bible? You think that is somehow wrong? You must have very nervous friends. They wouldn't have a clue what you are going to do next.

The last famous Bible basher was Joe Stalin, he actually killed more Jews than Hitler (another Bible basher). But the true Russian story may never escape.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree that ALL three of your complaints are worthy. You can go back to sleep now. We'll wake you when it's over.

[JenR]

I'm voting for McCain... don't judge me.

[eelliiinn]

im not really into american politics, but from what ive seen, i think Obama seems like the best man for the job.

[Joly]

Originally Posted by dave

Well, let's see. You make three Euro-points and then apologize for having that opinion. That's not a good start for your side...

1) She's pro-gun, and you hold that against her. To you it's reprehensible. For me it is a requirement. Our country was founded by scared farmers and Religious nuts who were fed up with being hung in the city square by British/French/Spanish/Dutch Aristocracy for trivial insults. You guys don't seem to be doing that much any more... Seems you learned your lesson. However, you have turned into a continent of wusses. You need to bring back some of those Australians (though they seem to be going soft lately.)

The fact that you can even believe a gun is a method of self-defense astounds me.
I've never even seen a proper gun up close where I live. In fact, the only people I can even imagine having a gun are farmers. My chances of being shot - almost nil. With like half of american households in possesion of guns I think I know where I'd rather live.

Originally Posted by dave

2) She's anti-abortion. So am I, so what? I really don't believe that you can turn back that particular clock. I suspect that it is racist to say anything more about this. In fact, because the various racial birth rates are evidence that being pro-abortion is always a racist stance, I can't even talk about this without being considered a racist and an asshole. So whenever a person talks about abortion they are really talking about race and any response is not Politically Correct. (Start with the fact that the white race is not replenishing itself and any discussion about killing babies is automatically a discussion about killing more brown/black babies than white. I knew that if I broke it down far enough you would eventually understand. So, any stance on Abortion is Racist.)

Wtf!? Racism never even crosses my mind when I think of abortion, so that was a waste of time, davey. =/

Originally Posted by dave

3) She's a Bible basher. (I think you mean Bible Thumper. A Bible basher would be someone who "bashes" the bible.)

No. I meant Bible Basher.


Yanks

[JenR]

Originally Posted by eelliiinn

im not really into american politics, but from what ive seen, i think Obama seems like the best man for the job.

i dont deny Obama wouldn't make a good a president.

but i really don't think he's serves his country and earned the job yet. He has impressed me too much with his what he's done in the world, or his past yet. the main thing I liek about Obama is he's personality, but personalitly wont get the job done.

McCain has severed his country. he was in a prisoner at war for years or crying out loud.

[Joly]

Originally Posted by JenR

McCain has severed his country.

All aboard the Failtrain!

[Kelsey]

Palin is extremely religious, and active in her church. How could "bible basher" possibly make sense?

I kept a lookout while I was in Europe, and saw no sign that your media even knew McCain existed, so I'm not surprised to hear a European glorify Obama.

As for the fact that you have never seen a gun up close because where you live you don't need one...congratulations. Unfortunately here in the US that's not the case. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, where not a whole lot of people need to own guns for protection. Where I live, outdoor sports are quite popular, and so people own guns they use in sporting or hunting. Other people in the country have guns because they want to be able to protect themselves, their families, and their property should they need to. Gun registrations, rules to protect those with guns (and those without), and similar laws are a long way from perfect in my opinion, but I do believe Americans reserve the right to bear arms. Luckily the Constitution agrees with me.

As for Obama, he voted present (not yes, not no, but that's a different story) 143 days that the Senate was open. 143 days of experience in a leadership experience. And he thinks he is ready to be promoted to Commander in Chief. You wouldn't be promoted from teacher to superintendant after 143 days, you wouldn't be promoted to manager from McDonalds in 143 days! Just some interesting food for thought.

[kingdumbass]

McCain's campaign has been in a total state of meltdown for the past two weeks....
Say what you will about his character, etc, but he's a terrible politician, prone to making bad decisions and saying strange things while campaigning.

And Sarah Palin is exposing just how unfit she really is for the office more and more every time she opens her mouth to speak. Supposedly, she will debate Joe Biden this Thursday, but I'll bet it doesn't happen. The McCain people will do whatever they have to in order to make sure that debate doesn't take place.

If Obama loses this election, it will strictly be because of racism.

[Kelsey]

If Obama loses, it will be because America saw through him. Not once has he actually given an example of something he will do.

I watched the video of Sarah Palin during the debates for Alaska governor and she crucified her opponant. She's quick on her feet, and is actually quite bright. I was watching the news this morning, and they were talking about how she had an embarrassing interview with Katie Couric (who is absolutely retarded, in my opinion), and instead of showing actual clips from the interview, they showed the Saturday Night Live sketch. Way to send a message.

[Ashley]

a couple thoughts:

No one is pro-abortion. Pro-choice and pro-abortion are two different things.

Katie Couric's interview with Palin was bad, look on youtube. It's stupid that they showed the SNL skit instead of an actual clip of the interview... but they actually were not much different. She's out of her league in this one, that's very apparent now.
As for her being a bible-thumper, there is nothing wrong with being religious. That is, as long as you do not force your views upon others. Some issues in the election are religious issues. We have the separation of church and state.
Also, Dave, I'm skeptical that Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler. I'd believe more people, but even then the numbers on how many people Stalin killed vary widely. The most popular theory is 20 million killed by Stalin and 11 million killed by Hitler in the concentration camps. If you have a link to the information please send it.

Obama is not anti-gun, he just wants to reform gun laws. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ets_obama.html

Factcheck.org is a great website to go to if you want actual factual information. The TV ads (For people in the US) are ridiculously skewed and misleading, both sides are guilty of that.


Vote for who you want, but be an informed voter.



I'm going to go disappear for another year to 3 years.

[dave]

Originally Posted by Joly

No. I meant Bible Basher.

Originally Posted by http://www.urbandictionary.com/

4. Bible basher
In America: One who incessantly criticizes the bible.
In Britain (and Australia): One who incessantly promotes the Bible.

3. bible thumper
A mega-right wing Christian wacko. Believes their life must be based on the Bible. The same goes for our goverment, it will be based on the Bible.

Ah, a translation problem. It's my understanding that she is a Pentacostal. There are several different types, and I've never met one that tries to proselytize their particular brand of Christianity. Most Pentecostal people are very private about their religion because they are the brunt of so many jokes.

Originally Posted by Ashley

No one is pro-abortion. Pro-choice and pro-abortion are two different things.

I try not to use weird terminology. To me the two positions are pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Pro-choice would mean that you have the choice not to have an abortion, being male, that choice is denied me. I would have no say in what a woman decided. I'm old fashioned enough that I believe a woman should always have the right to have an abortion and I have the right to be sad about it.

Originally Posted by Ashley

Obama is not anti-gun, he just wants to reform gun laws. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ets_obama.html

Your source spends a lot of time pussyfooting around the fact that Obama does indeed want to eliminate guns. Every single quote contains Obama's statement that it is not politically possible to do so. Not once does he say that if it were possible that he wouldn't do it. In fact he promises to make the Brady Bill permanent, to eliminate the "gun show loophole" and to eliminate "concealed carry nationwide". Incidentally, the notorious "gun show loophole" is just that you can buy a gun at a gunshow and leave with it that same day. All sales at gun shows are registered and there seems to be a plan to have every sale go through the "instant check".

Originally Posted by Ashley

Factcheck.org is a great website to go to if you want actual factual information. The TV ads (For people in the US) are ridiculously skewed and misleading, both sides are guilty of that.

You are right about factcheck.org debate_no_1 it was a lot of fun to read and learn what they thought. However, they totally ignored Obama's statements about bombing Pakistan AND inserting three battalions of US Soldiers into the UN Peacekeeping controlled conflict in Afghanistan. What do you think would happen if Russia decided to insert their army into Afghanistan?

[Ashley]

Originally Posted by dave

I try not to use weird terminology. To me the two positions are pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Pro-choice would mean that you have the choice not to have an abortion, being male, that choice is denied me. I would have no say in what a woman decided. I'm old fashioned enough that I believe a woman should always have the right to have an abortion and I have the right to be sad about it.

This is not "weird terminology", it is the generally used terminology. Just because a person believes in the right to choose does not mean that he or she goes around celebrating abortion. It's absolutely absurd to even imply that, which is exactly what the term "pro-abortion" does.

Originally Posted by dave

Your source spends a lot of time pussyfooting around the fact that Obama does indeed want to eliminate guns. Every single quote contains Obama's statement that it is not politically possible to do so. Not once does he say that if it were possible that he wouldn't do it. In fact he promises to make the Brady Bill permanent, to eliminate the "gun show loophole" and to eliminate "concealed carry nationwide". Incidentally, the notorious "gun show loophole" is just that you can buy a gun at a gunshow and leave with it that same day. All sales at gun shows are registered and there seems to be a plan to have every sale go through the "instant check".

First, I'm going to need sources. I'm sorry, but I just don't take people for their word when it comes to political debates.
Also, I don't think a 5 day waiting period is a bad thing at all. If they're hunters then they will know to go at least, 5 days prior to hunting season to pick up their new or used guns. And I know many hunters, they have it circled on their calendars.
Second, I'm going to assume, correct me if I'm wrong, that this "Your source spends a lot of time pussyfooting around the fact that Obama does indeed want to eliminate guns. Every single quote contains Obama's statement that it is not politically possible to do so" is in response to what Obama said in the Las Vegas Democratic debate. If I'm right, then he was not talking about eliminating guns, he was talking about licensing and registering guns and if he would do that as president. He said,

"I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets."

Secondly, I personally don't support conceal and carry. So, that will just run into a debate between you and I where neither will win. I'm here just to try and give and receive facts.

Originally Posted by dave

You are right about factcheck.org debate_no_1 it was a lot of fun to read and learn what they thought. However, they totally ignored Obama's statements about bombing Pakistan AND inserting three battalions of US Soldiers into the UN Peacekeeping controlled conflict in Afghanistan. What do you think would happen if Russia decided to insert their army into Afghanistan?

First, bombing anyone, let alone Pakistan is a terrible idea. We're already in enough trouble with Iraq and people outside, and inside the US just don't think very highly of our government or their practices. So, I agree he misspoke on that. However, I believe what he meant to say, and should have said more clearly is that if the US receives actual intelligence on the whereabouts of Al Quaeda leaders, especially OBL, and Pakistan refused to take action and either kill or capture, he send in our military to do it. At least he didn't say what Tom Tancredo said. Yeesh.
Also, maybe I'm just tired, but could you clarify your question Russia inserting army into Afghanistan?


As I said before, actual quotes with links are always welcome and appreciated.

[hasselbrad]

Originally Posted by kingdumbass

If Obama loses this election, it will strictly be because of racism.

So, the fact that I think he'll say pretty much anything to get elected is based solely on the color of his skin?

In the Democratic primaries, he piqued my interest when he blasted Clinton for supporting a "windfall profits" tax.
Now that he's got the nomination, he supports it.

It's not that I am diametrically opposed to him when it comes to our "healthcare crisis", but rather the color of his skin.

Nor does it have anything to do with the fact that most of his reforms are empty promises that have a snowball's chance in hell of ever making it through the House and Senate. He reminds me of the kid who ran for student class president when I was in the fifth grade. One of the planks of his "platform" was Coca-Cola in the water fountains.

I'm simply a racist.

[Leonie]

Originally Posted by dave

Well, let's see.
3) She's a Bible basher. (I think you mean Bible Thumper. A Bible basher would be someone who "bashes" the bible.) You have a problem with someone who actually believes and practices the morality taught in the Bible? You think that is somehow wrong? You must have very nervous friends. They wouldn't have a clue what you are going to do next.

I'm especially fond of the chapter that has Lot offering up one of his daughters for the village to rape so they won't rape his visitor. Of course, said daughters later get him drunk so he can impregnate them. Classy bunch they are. I'm thrilled people are practicing those morals still.

Puh-lease. The Bible is not the be all and end all of morals. Thinking you're better than other people because you are a Christian, however, I think goes right in against the call for a lack of self-importance in your very Bible. Jesus didn't think he was the hottest thing going around, so why do a group of his followers think they get to ride the superiority wagon?

Originally Posted by Kelsey

As for Obama, he voted present (not yes, not no, but that's a different story) 143 days that the Senate was open. 143 days of experience in a leadership experience. And he thinks he is ready to be promoted to Commander in Chief. You wouldn't be promoted from teacher to superintendant after 143 days, you wouldn't be promoted to manager from McDonalds in 143 days! Just some interesting food for thought.

Knowing that Alaska is between Canada and Russia makes you a great fit for vice-president, however. Repeating it three times makes it even more convincing. I'm with you on the Katie Couric moron point, but the fact remains that Palin had no real answer to provide an example of her foreign affairs experience. None. Katie Couric even led her on, giving her a real chance by asking her if she had perhaps been part of cross-border agreements, and she still didn't manage to get out anything else than "Russia, it's right there!" or something similar. I'd be terrified if there were even the slightest odds she might become my president.

I will say, however, that McCain is the least scary Republic in ten years. He's got some good points, seems extremely intelligent (and I realise that that's easy since we automatically compare him to Bush, but even without such easy comparison, the man is clever, fair enough) and his experience speaks for him. I just don't agree with him fully. I was willing to give him a chance, but Sarah Palin... I'm sorry, no. I'm sure she's just like everyone, and that's wonderful, but it doesn't in any way make one a worthy vice-president. Unlike Obama, she doesn't appear to have the smarts to make up for lack of experience either. I didn't think McCain that terrible, but I couldn't seriously vote for someone who's running mate is Sarah Palin. It's the end of credibility.

As always, of course, politics just turns into picking the lesser evil.

[hasselbrad]

Originally Posted by Leonie

As always, of course, politics just turns into picking the lesser evil.

Ain't that the fucking truth.

I'm getting to the point where I think armed revolt is the best option. The founding fathers felt it should always be in play.

[Kelsey]

Vice Presidential debate tomorrow night....should be interesting at least. In other news, after this is all over, I'm moving to Africa. Preferably some small village that has never heard of America. My beloved country is running itself into the ground.

[dave]

Originally Posted by Kelsey

Vice Presidential debate tomorrow night....should be interesting at least. In other news, after this is all over, I'm moving to Africa. Preferably some small village that has never heard of America. My beloved country is running itself into the ground.

Do be careful there. Their problems are far worse than ours. HIV & AIDS in Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa is more heavily affected by HIV and AIDS than any other region of the world. An estimated 22 million people were living with HIV at the end of 2007 and approximately 1.9 million additional people were infected with HIV during that year. In just the past year, the AIDS epidemic in Africa has claimed the lives of an estimated 1.5 million people in this region. More than eleven million children have been orphaned by AIDS.1

The extent of the AIDS crisis is only now becoming clear in many African countries, as increasing numbers of people with HIV are becoming ill. In the absence of massively expanded prevention, treatment and care efforts, it is expected that the AIDS death toll in sub-Saharan Africa will continue to rise. This means that impact of the AIDS epidemic on these societies will be felt most strongly in the course of the next ten years and beyond. Its social and economic consequences are already widely felt, not only in the health sector but also in education, industry, agriculture, transport, human resources and the economy in general.

How are different countries in Africa affected?

Both HIV prevalence rates and the numbers of people dying from AIDS vary greatly between African countries. In Somalia and Senegal the HIV prevalence is under 1% of the adult population, whereas in Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe around 15-20% of adults are infected with HIV.

In three southern African countries, the national adult HIV prevalence rate has risen higher than was thought possible and now exceeds 20%. These countries are Botswana (23.9%), Lesotho (23.2%) and Swaziland (26.1%).

West Africa has been less affected by AIDS, but the HIV prevalence rates in some countries are creeping up. HIV prevalence is estimated to exceed 5% in Cameroon (5.1%) and Gabon (5.9%).

Until recently the national HIV prevalence rate has remained relatively low in Nigeria, the most populous country in sub-Saharan Africa. The rate has grown slowly from below 2% in 1993 to 3.1% in 2007. But some states in Nigeria are already experiencing HIV infection rates as high as those now found in Cameroon. Already around 2.4 million Nigerians are estimated to be living with HIV.

Adult HIV prevalence in East Africa exceeds 5% in Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania.