mcCain vs.Obama Interviews

i don't understand the crossover reference

Makeup.

Osterkraut wrote: Makeup.

weak..

That crosses over like lil' wayne does to the lawrence welk set.

I think I was 4 when Lawrence Welk died, and is Lil' Wayne the OOOOOOOKAY guy?

Osterkraut wrote: I think I was 4 when Lawrence Welk died, and is Lil' Wayne the OOOOOOOKAY guy?

no.. the OOOOOOKAY guy is lil John.

Lil Wayne is the pitch shifted voice rapper.. with the dreds and completely covered with tattoos.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/8/15/16612/5853

another reason why I won't vote for mccain. Mr. Green energy is really Mr. Fakey fake pants.

the buzzword energy security only rings true with those who are still scared of bogeymen.

ignorant wrote: .. with the dreds and completely covered with tattoos.

So, that's like, what, all of them?

ddavidv wrote: Placing Obama's charisma and good looks aside, what is he really bringing to the table? What does 'change' mean, exactly? I have no idea, and neither do any of his supporters. That is frightening. I don't have a clue if I should like the guy or not. I can't get a straight answer out of him on anything, and that interview last night was no exception.

Here's how I see it. And I can use the war in Iraq as a perfect example.

Obama wants out. He wants out gracefully. Not only does he see that this is a no win situation for us if we contine to let Iraq USE us, he also see the cost of the war bankrupting the US (note- when someone brought up the idea of raising taxes to pay for the war, he was accused of not supporting the troops). While he has been accused of wanting to raise taxes, I see that as the need to actually run the country with a ballanced budget. So I see "change" as 1) getting out of Iraq, and 2) spending responsibility.

McCain is willing to stay in Iraq until the job is done. What does that mean? Well, anyway, he does not care that many of the US don't want us there (but that's his position to get the people who do want us there- fine). But as far as I can tell, while he wants us to be in Iraq, he has no solid plans to pay for it. Which, IMHO, means a continued high rate of increase of our debt, and a continued devaluation of our dollar. If he's willing to spend w/o reguard in Iraq, then I read that as spending as the past 3 Republican Presidents have. So I see no change as 1) staying in Iraq, and 2) spending freely.

Say what you want about the Democrats, while they probably will raise your taxes, at least they are going to TRY to actually pay for the programs they want, as opposed to the Repubicans who have been freely spending for the last 3 Presidents. I just don't understand how real fiscal conservatives can continue to support the current crop of Republicans. Can someone explain that? I know you have issue with Democrat social programs, but you don't have a problem with massive deficit spending? We will eventually have to pay that, you do know that, right?

Eric

Say what you want about the Democrats, while they probably will raise your taxes, at least they are going to TRY to actually pay for the programs they want, as opposed to the Repubicans who have been freely spending for the last 3 Presidents. I just don't understand how real fiscal conservatives can continue to support the current crop of Republicans. Can someone explain that? I know you have issue with Democrat social programs, but you don't have a problem with massive deficit spending? We will eventually have to pay that, you do know that, right? Eric

I don't like what has been happening with our deficit and related spending but I also don't like socialistic programs and higher taxes- why can't someone be in the middle?! If it were only so easy I guess....

I also find it ironic that the Iraqi leadership is continually calling for us to get out but we don't seem to want to, what's up with that?

There really is no "middle." There's four positions:

Tax and spend (democrats)

tax heavily and spend heavily (socialist)

don't tax, but spend (republicans)

don't tax, don't spend (libertarian)

If you want someone who taxes but does not spend, that guy is not a politician.

So what you are saying is that we need to get all of the automobile dealerships put in charge of the country.

They get all your money and give you little in return but "that special feeling" and they spend nothing.

I'm In.

In Congress (opposite of Progress), the current crop of R's is pretty sad. The current crop of D's is pretty sad. But blameing the R's for the deficit spending is a bit of a stretch. I'd like to point out that every single time that W or the R's tried to even limit the growth of any socialism program, the D's screamed bloody murder and the poor will die. Eventually the R's and W just said, sure, whatever, spend it.

I AM THE LIZARD QUEEN!

Dr. Hess wrote: In Congress (opposite of Progress), the current crop of R's is pretty sad. The current crop of D's is pretty sad. But blameing the R's for the deficit spending is a bit of a stretch. I'd like to point out that every single time that W or the R's tried to even limit the growth of any socialism program, the D's screamed bloody murder and the poor will die. Eventually the R's and W just said, sure, whatever, spend it.

what the

IRAQ. Halliburton. nope nope nope...

come on buddy. don't tell me that cutting down on a school lunch program for people you consider to be leaches will plug the gaping hole in the budget that is our current military operations.

Dr. Hess wrote: In Congress (opposite of Progress), the current crop of R's is pretty sad. The current crop of D's is pretty sad. But blameing the R's for the deficit spending is a bit of a stretch. I'd like to point out that every single time that W or the R's tried to even limit the growth of any socialism program, the D's screamed bloody murder and the poor will die. Eventually the R's and W just said, sure, whatever, spend it.

I know what you are saying.

But it's very much like blaming the D's in the Regan era for exploding the deficit. Both Regan and Bush had a very powerful "No" that Clinton used repeatedly- VETO.

None the less, both sides pander to votes, and few actually seem to care to run the country.

What's funny about leading the country, or any organization for that matter- doing nothing is never good enough. Even if nothing is the right thing to do. I encountered this many times on the BOD I served on. "Must change this rule" and I said- "is there a problem that this addresses?"- normally- "no, I just think it's something we need to do..."

IMHO, a lot of what congres does is that. And is why MOST of the laws they write are temporary. So that they can do it again, and proove that they are doing something....

E-

ddavidv wrote: Placing Obama's charisma and good looks aside, what is he really bringing to the table? What does 'change' mean, exactly? I have no idea, and neither do any of his supporters. That is frightening. I don't have a clue if I should like the guy or not. I can't get a straight answer out of him on anything, and that interview last night was no exception.

Swing by your local library and look through the back articles of Fortune magazine. They did a pretty good series on both candidates plans in a June issue.

I should not have to search and find a magazine back issue. Both of them are being interviewed ad nauseum on electronic media. Why can't they just answer a direct question with a direct answer? To respond with "That decision is at a higher pay grade" is both moronic and insulting.

Say what you believe, and believe what you say. Why is that such a difficult concept?

I hate that I missed the interviews Saturday night. I did find the transcript here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/16/se.02.html

It addressed many social issues that I am interested in. I'm glad to hear the questions were straight forward and tried to make the candidates answer directly. What a refreshing thing compared to the usual debates. A few things that were of interest to me. Obama's camp is claiming McCain cheated by hearing the questions when Obama was answering them. I guess that means even Obama thinks McCain did a better job. I wish Warren had pressed Obama on his blocking of the Born Alive Act in Illinois (which would have protected babies AFTER they are born). It seems to be his most damning vote on the Abortion issue.

Doot da doo, la da dee da da da doot da doo. Beepbadeep deepa dee doo.

Decision is at a higher pay grade is moronic, unless you are speaking to a religious group and you are refering to God.

Shame on him for having a sense of humor that doesn't involve apes raping women or killing innocent civilians with cigarettes.

ddavidv wrote: I should not have to search and find a magazine back issue. Both of them are being interviewed ad nauseum on electronic media. Why can't they just answer a direct question with a direct answer? To respond with "That decision is at a higher pay grade" is both moronic and insulting. Say what you believe, and believe what you say. Why is that such a difficult concept?

FWIW: a quick Google shows many references to Hillary Clinton as the Lizard queen. There's even a You Tube video link.

Once again we have the Balkanization of America not by the candidates but by their supporters and it's very visible in this thread. Way to go, guys.

Clay wrote: I hate that I missed the interviews Saturday night. I did find the transcript here: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/16/se.02.html It addressed many social issues that I am interested in. I'm glad to hear the questions were straight forward and tried to make the candidates answer directly. What a refreshing thing compared to the usual debates. A few things that were of interest to me. Obama's camp is claiming McCain cheated by hearing the questions when Obama was answering them. I guess that means even Obama thinks McCain did a better job. I wish Warren had pressed Obama on his blocking of the Born Alive Act in Illinois (which would have protected babies AFTER they are born). It seems to be his most damning vote on the Abortion issue.

Thank you Clay for posting something that actually had something to do with the title of this thread.

I thought the soundproof room thing was an interesting approach.

Jensenman wrote: Balkanization of America

we're turning slavic?

Yes, and that McCain wasn't in it.

SVreX wrote: I thought the soundproof room thing was an interesting approach.