So who won the debate here? Hillary or Obama? - Page 2

{DvT}JonahHex · 02-23-2008, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [DvT]UY

McCain is your friend...a libby disguised as a conservative. Just not as far left as Obama or Clinton and a helluva lot more experienced in gov't.

That may be. However, the Pres is only 1/3 of the equation. A change in the White House usually brings a change in the Congress with it...not always...but often. McCain in the White House may not bring a Rep majority back to Congress, but if not, it is likely that balance would remain similar to what it is...and impotent, as it now is, and, if so, either the balance only shifts slightly and is merely impotent in the other direction or we get the "tax-cut and spend" nutcases again.

Us libruls may be "tax and spend" but at least the tax part gives us a way to pay our bills when we spend...and the phone company won't cut off the FBI's wiretap service.

Further, with the Dem's predilection for getting out of Iraq, when they spend it is likely they'll spend on and for Americans.

{DvT}JonahHex · 02-23-2008, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [DvT]UY

They interviewed one young lady and she said "I keep hearing about how Obama isn't qualified but everybody needs a chance to get started"
LMAO!!

Bush wasn't qualified and you gave him a chance. After 8 years, he still isn't qualified and you want to continue to give the people who pushed him in front of us another chance. What's wrong with giving Obama a chance?

{OF}Blong · 02-23-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by {DvT}JonahHex

Bush wasn't qualified and you gave him a chance. After 8 years, he still isn't qualified and you want to continue to give the people who pushed him in front of us another chance. What's wrong with giving Obama a chance?

Bush was qualified enough that he did very well considering the situation that was left for him to have to deal with.

{OF}Flying_Dutchman · 02-23-2008, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by {DvT}JonahHex

That may be. However, the Pres is only 1/3 of the equation. A change in the White House usually brings a change in the Congress with it...not always...but often. McCain in the White House may not bring a Rep majority back to Congress, but if not, it is likely that balance would remain similar to what it is...and impotent, as it now is, and, if so, either the balance only shifts slightly and is merely impotent in the other direction or we get the "tax-cut and spend" nutcases again.

Us libruls may be "tax and spend" but at least the tax part gives us a way to pay our bills when we spend...and the phone company won't cut off the FBI's wiretap service.

Further, with the Dem's predilection for getting out of Iraq, when they spend it is likely they'll spend on and for Americans.

You could make the argument that we seem to make the best decisions when the president is the opposite party of whoever has the majority in congress. We just balance things better that way.

{OF}Malicious Assault · 02-23-2008, 09:32 AM

No matter who you elect, nothing will get done, thats the way of politics. If you think any candidate will change the Washington way your in a dream world. As long as the people with the most money run the country, the people with the most money will reap the benefits and the middle/ lower class will pay for it. I say fire them all and put a whole new crew in and see what happens. Let no one who has held a political office run in the election. Then appoint a panel of citizens who decides what issues are worked on in what order. That will be the only way to change the Old Washington politics. Until that change comes it really doesn't matter who you elect to the big white house on Penn. Ave.

{DvT}JonahHex · 02-23-2008, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by {OF}Blong

Bush was qualified enough that he did very well considering the situation that was left for him to have to deal with.

What was "left for him" that required the shredding of the Constitution, the perpetuation of war for 4 years after the "mission [was] accomplished," turning the budget surplus into a deficit, and destroying the country's international prestige and reputation?

Sorry, his predecessor getting a blowjob didn't necessitate any of that.

{OF}Blong · 02-23-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by {DvT}JonahHex

What was "left for him" that required the shredding of the Constitution, the perpetuation of war for 4 years after the "mission [was] accomplished," turning the budget surplus into a deficit, and destroying the country's international prestige and reputation?

Sorry, his predecessor getting a blowjob didn't necessitate any of that.

no instead it was those before him that ignored the threats of terrorism etc etc etc.

{DvT}Rhino · 02-23-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by {OF}Blong

no instead it was those before him that ignored the threats of terrorism etc etc etc.

Assuming that "those before him" means Bill Clinton and not Bush I and Reagan: I think Bill did what was reasonably appropriate for what we knew at the time. Nearly 7 years after 9/11 we still don't have secure ports or borders. Bush feels Afghanistan (real terror threat) is only 1/7th as significant as Iraq (faux terror threat boondoggle) considering troops and money.

Check out Bill's side of the story here.

On the general election:
I'm not sure that having a Washington insider with 20 years of experience is a positive thing. To McCain's credit he has a fairly decent record (better than most-Clinton and Obama included) of voting with his heart rather than with lobbied interests (although he was reprimanded in the late 90's). I would prefer to see someone closely related to my beliefs heading up the Executive Branch and appointing Supreme Court Justices. At the least, I am glad to see McCain as the republican nominee since it means we won't get a total neo-conservative nutjob in office for another 8 years even if they win the general election.

On the debate(finally on-topic):

Hillary is making the last attacks that she can muster and so far Obama has deflected them quite well and eloquently which is good to see. Having a well-composed speaker lends some credibility to his platform rather than having a speaker that can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly tell us how we should direct our energy policy

I can see Obama speaking to other world leaders in a direct and non-condescending way and help re-establish some of our clout on the international scene.

GWB was a trainwreck from start to finish. I have higher hopes for McCain, Clinton or Obama.

Al Gore for President

{DvT}JonahHex · 02-24-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by {OF}Blong

no instead it was those before him that ignored the threats of terrorism etc etc etc.

Ahhh - the "oil for guns" deal - Iran-Contra aka Irangate. Yeah, I suppose there is that. Ronnie Baby and Daddy Bush did set us up, didn't they?

{OF}Blong · 02-24-2008, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by {DvT}JonahHex

Ahhh - the "oil for guns" deal - Iran-Contra aka Irangate. Yeah, I suppose there is that. Ronnie Baby and Daddy Bush did set us up, didn't they?

hehe well I never said bush was the BEST president we ever had but in my mind he was better than the guy who sent half of his work to mexico to save $$$. I can only imagine how things would be had he won.