Alright, who won? 
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
First Presidential Debate
- Thread starter yojack1
- Start date
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Messages
- 66
Alright, who won?
Not me... this debate is so boring.
VP debate should be more entertaining.
Daaaaaaaaamn how do you get whooped by a dude with comb over! I might vote for Obama out of pity now!
The first part was pretty even for me with Obama having a slight lead. However, the second portion is undeniable that McCain won hands down. This doesn't come with much surprise and it was pretty expected with his experience in this field. I was amazed how many times Obama said, "I agree with senator McCain". It was also interesting that McCain addressed him as Senator Obama, but Obama addressed him as John.
One of the funniest things for me was seeing McCain's constant expression of discomfort. It looked as if he was holding in some gas or had to take a big poop, while Obama maintained his cool and relaxed composure.
The VP debate should be more exciting. I think Palin doesn't stand a chance. :redface:
One of the funniest things for me was seeing McCain's constant expression of discomfort. It looked as if he was holding in some gas or had to take a big poop, while Obama maintained his cool and relaxed composure.
The VP debate should be more exciting. I think Palin doesn't stand a chance. :redface:
Last edited:
It'll be better than the SNL skit. Now this is the Reality TV I'll be watching.
Hey Jordan,
I thought they both held their ground well, with McCain drawing strongly on personal experience, but Obama being the more diplomatic candidate.
As often as Obama repeated "I agree with Senator McCain" I think it shows that Obama will be the real bipartisan president, not Senator McCain. Afterall, you really can't genuinely work with someone if you don't respect for him from the start.
It will be interesting to see how the rest of the country saw the debate, I saw it as a slight advantage for Obama tonight.
Regards,
Danny
You can find a negative or positive in anything if you like one guy and dislike the other. I didn't bother watching the debate except for the little bit I saw while working out at the gym, more important things to do. As usual, McCain looks uncomfortable but is concise with his answers while Obama is smooth but lacks substance. Hip Hip hooray..
without going in to specifics Obama seemed to be the more arrogant,quicker thinking,more comfortable with the whole proccess.I also felt like he needed to have the last word.McCain imo came across as an old soldier.Less eager to win public opinion,but willing to hold steadfast on his beliefs.He seemed uncomfortable and nervous.
I would see that as a military thing. You should always show respect to those of your equal and above in rank, even those under you. In this case, they are both senators.
I've been out for a few years now and I'm still yes ma'am, yes sir to those who are older and EARNED it.
Sometimes the right thing to do isn't always the popular thing. Sometimes the right thing isn't always right for everyone. He does come off to me as hardcore sticks to his guns.
Last edited:
"I think unnnnn, we should uhhhhhhh, blame uhhhhhh, the last 8 years uhhhhh for every thing uhhhhhh bush did uhhhhhh so uhhhhhh I can get uhhhh Elelcted.
"I uhhh have uhhh bracelt uhhhh too:biggrin:
"I uhhh have uhhh bracelt uhhhh too:biggrin:
Last edited:
I actually agree with you on the debate, but I'm willing to put a wager on the VP debate. Care to bet? Since DNC, Joe Biden have demonstrated over and over that he is a B.S.er who fiddles his way though interviews with retarded and ridiculous answers when answering tough questions.
Last edited:
i wouldnt say one person won vs the other because it was a pretty good debate all around, it was not a complete smack down by any means but mccain did show alot of authority and ruffled obamas feathers.
i think everybody and thier mom assumes obama will win all debates because he is a great speaker, but without his teleprompter he stutters before almost every reply in the debate and interviews.
"well uhh uh uhhh uhhh now well uhh well now":tongue:
and they write off mccain as being old and ignorant or something,
i think mccain could have done stood his ground more/attacked on the economy part about how he was willing to sacrifice the debate to focus on getting this whole financial crisis stuff done in washington just like he said he would rather loose an election than a war.
but thats what the economy debate will be for.
i hate politics:tongue:
i think everybody and thier mom assumes obama will win all debates because he is a great speaker, but without his teleprompter he stutters before almost every reply in the debate and interviews.
"well uhh uh uhhh uhhh now well uhh well now":tongue:
and they write off mccain as being old and ignorant or something,
i think mccain could have done stood his ground more/attacked on the economy part about how he was willing to sacrifice the debate to focus on getting this whole financial crisis stuff done in washington just like he said he would rather loose an election than a war.
but thats what the economy debate will be for.
i hate politics:tongue:
I think Mccain won that one, but both did a lousy job talking about the bail-out. Obama did a lot of talking, but he really didn't say much. It was clear Mccain had 10x the knowledge that Obama did on Foreign issues, but then again Mccain is 1000 years old.
I thought Obama's "I have a bracelet too" comment was pathetic.
I thought Obama's "I have a bracelet too" comment was pathetic.
Obama is right, McCain was wrong.
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xG1aOORf8Pc&hl=en&fs=1" width="425" height="350" quality="high" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>
CBS poll of undecides: Blowout. Obama wins debate.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/27/0026/92013/210/612018
<img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Campaign/Blowout-1.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
<img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Campaign/Blowout-3.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
<img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Campaign/Blowout-2.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xG1aOORf8Pc&hl=en&fs=1" width="425" height="350" quality="high" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"></embed>
CBS poll of undecides: Blowout. Obama wins debate.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/27/0026/92013/210/612018
<img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Campaign/Blowout-1.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
<img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Campaign/Blowout-3.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
<img src="http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2008/Campaign/Blowout-2.jpg" border="0" alt="" />
Last edited:
Got that right
I thought Obama was bright, clean, articulate and a nice looking guy. :biggrin:
Seriously, Obama was slick and polished. McCain was direct and to the point. Each side and supporters of each side will claim victory.
The exchange about taxes caught my attention. As you know Obama wants to raise taxes on people earning more than $250K. A very populist (Yeah, let's stick it to those evil, rich, country club Republicans!!!) thing to say, but, are we as a people really that naive to think this is a solution?
As McCain pointed out - if you're concerned about jobs leaving the USA, then raising taxes on business (i.e. $250K and greater) is the wrong move. Why do you think companies are leaving the USA? Cheaper labor AND less taxes. Don't we really want to have companies and foreign investments coming INTO the USA instead of LEAVING?
I live in a suburb of Philadelphia, a city that has a very high wage tax. People have been leaving the city in droves for years because of this tax. And while we've seen some large businesses (Comcast) set up shop, they've only done so because they got huge tax breaks. It's the same deal nationally. Higher taxes inhibit growth, stimulate inflation and exodus. Low taxes encourage growth and attract investors and jobs. It has been proven time and time again that the best way to increase city, state or federal revenue is by lowering taxes and encouraging growth. If you're a Democrat (or really anyone), read what JFK had to say on this topic...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39517
As the owner of a small business I can tell you that increased taxes will only force me (and most other small businesses) to raise prices or worse (i.e. layoff workers, close the doors).
http://www.sba.gov/advo/press/06-17.html
Since small business here in the USA, represents more than 99% of ALL business, and since many of these businesses are S Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_corporation), these are the companies and people that will be hit the hardest by Obama's tax plan.
Any potential tax breaks to the middle class will be offset and eroded by businesses leaving the country entirely OR by businesses passing along the tax increases to the consumer. How does this help anyone? We don't need a bout of inflation to make things worse.
There's an unfortunate tendency by the Obama camp to demonize people making over $250K. Oh these selfish rich people! Biden even has the gall to say it's time to these people to step up the plate and be patriotic !
The next time you drive around - perhaps in your own town or area - just look at the businesses. The deli, the dry cleaner, the flower shop, the barber, the restaurant, the hardware store. If your town is like mine, many of these stores are owned by individuals who would be adversely affected by an Obama tax increase. And this isn't just income tax. It's increased payroll taxes, higher capital gains taxes, death tax, etc.
Why are these concepts not self-evident? Is it because so many of the Obama supporters simply hate George Bush SO much that common sense just doesn't matter?
-J
Seriously, Obama was slick and polished. McCain was direct and to the point. Each side and supporters of each side will claim victory.
The exchange about taxes caught my attention. As you know Obama wants to raise taxes on people earning more than $250K. A very populist (Yeah, let's stick it to those evil, rich, country club Republicans!!!) thing to say, but, are we as a people really that naive to think this is a solution?
As McCain pointed out - if you're concerned about jobs leaving the USA, then raising taxes on business (i.e. $250K and greater) is the wrong move. Why do you think companies are leaving the USA? Cheaper labor AND less taxes. Don't we really want to have companies and foreign investments coming INTO the USA instead of LEAVING?
I live in a suburb of Philadelphia, a city that has a very high wage tax. People have been leaving the city in droves for years because of this tax. And while we've seen some large businesses (Comcast) set up shop, they've only done so because they got huge tax breaks. It's the same deal nationally. Higher taxes inhibit growth, stimulate inflation and exodus. Low taxes encourage growth and attract investors and jobs. It has been proven time and time again that the best way to increase city, state or federal revenue is by lowering taxes and encouraging growth. If you're a Democrat (or really anyone), read what JFK had to say on this topic...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39517
As the owner of a small business I can tell you that increased taxes will only force me (and most other small businesses) to raise prices or worse (i.e. layoff workers, close the doors).
http://www.sba.gov/advo/press/06-17.html
Since small business here in the USA, represents more than 99% of ALL business, and since many of these businesses are S Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_corporation), these are the companies and people that will be hit the hardest by Obama's tax plan.
Any potential tax breaks to the middle class will be offset and eroded by businesses leaving the country entirely OR by businesses passing along the tax increases to the consumer. How does this help anyone? We don't need a bout of inflation to make things worse.
There's an unfortunate tendency by the Obama camp to demonize people making over $250K. Oh these selfish rich people! Biden even has the gall to say it's time to these people to step up the plate and be patriotic !
The next time you drive around - perhaps in your own town or area - just look at the businesses. The deli, the dry cleaner, the flower shop, the barber, the restaurant, the hardware store. If your town is like mine, many of these stores are owned by individuals who would be adversely affected by an Obama tax increase. And this isn't just income tax. It's increased payroll taxes, higher capital gains taxes, death tax, etc.
Why are these concepts not self-evident? Is it because so many of the Obama supporters simply hate George Bush SO much that common sense just doesn't matter?
-J
Last edited:
Another issue I have with Obama regarding the tax hike on $250k folks, how is it fair to people who make that kind of money if they live in places like LA or Austin TX? If I make $250k per year and living in the third world part of the country, my life style will be much better than people who live in Down Town Manhattan. Forbe's idea is the best, 17% across the board, if you make more, you will end up paying more; however, if you don't want to work, feel free to stay home but don't expect productive people to pay for your laziness.
Straight percentage tax rates fails to take into consideration that there is a base amount needed to subsist on. Call it what you will- minimum, poverty, etc. That base amount should never be taxable. Along the same line of reasoning, the further one earns above the "minimum" amount, the more one now has for discretionary spending and a greater ability to pay taxes. Obama's plan mushrooms the higher up you go and in this environment of ever increasing deficit and national debt, plus 7+ years of Bush Tax cuts, someone has to pay the bill.
Say what you will about raising taxes during a recession (has Bush finally admitted it yet?), but more tax cuts in light of what has happened in the past 7 years seems even more counter-intuitive. Jumping out of the pot into the fire is an argument Bush republicans like to use, on the economy AND in Iraq as some backwards way of saying "it could be worse" and it may, but nearly 8 years of failed policies is enough for me to take that jump.
Regards,
Danny
Last edited:
I agree on the flat tax. I never understood the rationale behind higher tax rates based on higher income. You have one tax rate for everyone with perhaps some kind of relief or rebate for the truly poor.
Why 'punish' those who are more productive? Why impose dis-incentive for doing better?
I firmly believe that most of our problems are due to governmental meddling and well-intentioned, but disastrous social engineering?
Things like minimum wage. If a minimum wage is so good why not make it $20 per hour and solve all our problems.
And the most recent example... helping people by giving them risky mortgages so they can own a home. When did the word apartment become a dirty word?
Why 'punish' those who are more productive? Why impose dis-incentive for doing better?
I firmly believe that most of our problems are due to governmental meddling and well-intentioned, but disastrous social engineering?
Things like minimum wage. If a minimum wage is so good why not make it $20 per hour and solve all our problems.
And the most recent example... helping people by giving them risky mortgages so they can own a home. When did the word apartment become a dirty word?
Straight percentage tax rates fails to take into consideration that there is a base amount needed to subsist on. Call it what you will- minimum, poverty, etc. That base amount should never be taxable.
OK, I don't have a problem with that. Let's say the first $10K is tax free. But also keep in mind there are a bunch of other government plans to help these people as well.
Along the same line of reasoning, the further one earns above the "minimum" amount, the more one now has for discretionary spending and a greater ability to pay taxes. Obama's plan mushrooms the higher up you go and in this environment of ever increasing deficit and national debt, plus 7+ years of Bush Tax cuts, someone has to pay the bill.
First off you're making a flawed assumption that higher taxes equates to more revenues for the government. If someone makes $100K a year they would pay $17K in taxes. If they made $1M a year they pay $170K a year. That IS paying more. Again, why purposely put in place a "reverse carrot and stick" when it has been proven again and again that it really doesn't produce more revenue? Why is this so hard to understand? The government should want to maximize revenue and stop punishing those in the position to drive growth and prosperity.
Say what you will about raising taxes during a recession (has Bush finally admitted it yet?), but more tax cuts in light of what has happened in the past 7 years seems even more counter-intuitive.
It may seem counter-intuitive but it's true nonetheless. Why do you think the Beatles left England? Go out and talk with small biz owners (those who are the backbone of this country's employment and financial position). Ask these people about the effect of paying higher taxes. Can't you see how raising taxes on the very same people who are responsible for employing millions is counter-productive?
At this very moment, 86% of all fed income tax is paid by the top 25% of income earners.
This is an indisputable fact (source - IRS) and I can verify it if you wish. Here's another stat.
At this very moment the top 50% of earners pay 97% of ALL income tax.
And here's the real eyeopener...
The top 1% pay 39%.
Is this not enough? What do you think it should be? Do these stats REALLY lend credence to the rumor that the rich aren't paying their fair share?
By the way, under Bush, the top 1% went from paying 37% to 39%.
And here's a indisputable and provable point to remember and burn into your mind. Under Bush the tax rate for the so-called rich was cut from 39.6% to 35%. But despite these evil Bush tax cuts for the rich, the top 1% of earners went from paying 37% to 39% of the total federal tax!
That's right. The Bush tax cuts on the rich caused these rich people to pay a higher percentage of the total tax bill.
And all these numbers are after tax exemptions, loopholes, etc.
These are the facts and it's a damn shame we're forced to discuss meaningless crap such as lipstick, bracelets, how many cars McCain or Obama owns, who's the better orator, who stuttered more, etc.
Jumping out of the pot into the fire is an argument Bush republicans like to use, on the economy AND in Iraq as some backwards way of saying "it could be worse" and it may, but nearly 8 years of failed policies is enough for me to take that jump.
I don't consider myself a "Bush Republican" and I understand that a lot of people hate Bush. But it could be worse and it could be a LOT worse. But please don't let your opinion of Bush cloud your view from the facts and the truth.
OK, I don't have a problem with that. Let's say the first $10K is tax free. But also keep in mind there are a bunch of other government plans to help these people as well.
Along the same line of reasoning, the further one earns above the "minimum" amount, the more one now has for discretionary spending and a greater ability to pay taxes. Obama's plan mushrooms the higher up you go and in this environment of ever increasing deficit and national debt, plus 7+ years of Bush Tax cuts, someone has to pay the bill.
First off you're making a flawed assumption that higher taxes equates to more revenues for the government. If someone makes $100K a year they would pay $17K in taxes. If they made $1M a year they pay $170K a year. That IS paying more. Again, why purposely put in place a "reverse carrot and stick" when it has been proven again and again that it really doesn't produce more revenue? Why is this so hard to understand? The government should want to maximize revenue and stop punishing those in the position to drive growth and prosperity.
Say what you will about raising taxes during a recession (has Bush finally admitted it yet?), but more tax cuts in light of what has happened in the past 7 years seems even more counter-intuitive.
It may seem counter-intuitive but it's true nonetheless. Why do you think the Beatles left England? Go out and talk with small biz owners (those who are the backbone of this country's employment and financial position). Ask these people about the effect of paying higher taxes. Can't you see how raising taxes on the very same people who are responsible for employing millions is counter-productive?
At this very moment, 86% of all fed income tax is paid by the top 25% of income earners.
This is an indisputable fact (source - IRS) and I can verify it if you wish. Here's another stat.
At this very moment the top 50% of earners pay 97% of ALL income tax.
And here's the real eyeopener...
The top 1% pay 39%.
Is this not enough? What do you think it should be? Do these stats REALLY lend credence to the rumor that the rich aren't paying their fair share?
By the way, under Bush, the top 1% went from paying 37% to 39%.
And here's a indisputable and provable point to remember and burn into your mind. Under Bush the tax rate for the so-called rich was cut from 39.6% to 35%. But despite these evil Bush tax cuts for the rich, the top 1% of earners went from paying 37% to 39% of the total federal tax!
That's right. The Bush tax cuts on the rich caused these rich people to pay a higher percentage of the total tax bill.
And all these numbers are after tax exemptions, loopholes, etc.
These are the facts and it's a damn shame we're forced to discuss meaningless crap such as lipstick, bracelets, how many cars McCain or Obama owns, who's the better orator, who stuttered more, etc.
Jumping out of the pot into the fire is an argument Bush republicans like to use, on the economy AND in Iraq as some backwards way of saying "it could be worse" and it may, but nearly 8 years of failed policies is enough for me to take that jump.
I don't consider myself a "Bush Republican" and I understand that a lot of people hate Bush. But it could be worse and it could be a LOT worse. But please don't let your opinion of Bush cloud your view from the facts and the truth.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Messages
- 66
+1. I have one too, can I be President?
Obama agrees with McCain on every thing.lol
Real quick on the debate..Both did well.. Polls are all over the place and the MSM is spinning it towards Obama, that's fine, the people can decide..
On the economy, I think most uninformed people will give it to Obama but I feel McCain is more right...
When it came to the question of "What specifically would you do?" McCain said "I would have a spending freeze on all but critical programs.." and "accountability.."
This is the right thing to do .... When you're bleeding, you have to stop bleeding, if your company looks like it's going to go into bankruptcy, you have a hiring freeze and turn off the lights at night...Obama didn't seem to understand that. On Accountability - look up the NYT article, Fanne Mae mess may have been avoided or at least seriously less damaging if Democrats would have done what Bush, of all people, and McCain was asking to do - <gasps> more regulation, accountability and oversight. McCain mentioned accountability, but has been missing it big when it comes to hitting the Democrats and Obama on this....He mentioned a 9/11 style commission to figure out what went wrong and make sure it doesn't happen again etc... McCain provided common sense, non-partisan solutions and to my dismay, did not put the fire where it belongs, in the Democrat's lap
See this video:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H5tZc8oH--o&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H5tZc8oH--o&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
On Foreign Policy, McCain nailed it.
Still - Obama did GREAT for Obama. Very few uhmss..ughs... etc...
On the economy, I think most uninformed people will give it to Obama but I feel McCain is more right...
When it came to the question of "What specifically would you do?" McCain said "I would have a spending freeze on all but critical programs.." and "accountability.."
This is the right thing to do .... When you're bleeding, you have to stop bleeding, if your company looks like it's going to go into bankruptcy, you have a hiring freeze and turn off the lights at night...Obama didn't seem to understand that. On Accountability - look up the NYT article, Fanne Mae mess may have been avoided or at least seriously less damaging if Democrats would have done what Bush, of all people, and McCain was asking to do - <gasps> more regulation, accountability and oversight. McCain mentioned accountability, but has been missing it big when it comes to hitting the Democrats and Obama on this....He mentioned a 9/11 style commission to figure out what went wrong and make sure it doesn't happen again etc... McCain provided common sense, non-partisan solutions and to my dismay, did not put the fire where it belongs, in the Democrat's lap
See this video:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/H5tZc8oH--o&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/H5tZc8oH--o&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
On Foreign Policy, McCain nailed it.
Still - Obama did GREAT for Obama. Very few uhmss..ughs... etc...
Last edited:
