The Obama & McCain Debate

[PuffnScruff]

Well, I could see how one could mix up the Presidents like that. However, I mean, Jesus Christ Biden, there were no televisions in use at the time.

I think it's good for both Palin and Biden that no follow-up questions be allowed in the VP debate. But, I'm pretty sure Palin won't disappoint and will provide us with at least one great quote like her bailout plan answer in the interview with Katie Couric.

In the end it just shows that these canidates, even though they make gaffes, they are just human.

Oh he said he agreed with his buddy aaaaafter the debate, that makes sense now cus he doesn't want to make McCain look bad. Cus just a few days prior he was saying this

"From CNN's transcript of its September 21 special report The Next President: A World of Challenges:

KISSINGER: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic -- with authentic proposals.

SESNO: To put at a very high level right out of the box?

KISSINGER: Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.

Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?

But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government."

Media Matters - CNN's King reads Kissinger statement without noting accusation against Obama is false

It's from Mediamatters though so you'll probably toss it out like it's some propaganda, actually you may like that site so I'm not sure.


They talk about it here also:
Both candidates kowtowed to the disgraceful Kissinger. Only Obama cited him correctly.Â* - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

Obamamaniacs, lol. What's funny is they are trying to make this into "presidential level" talk, when Obama never said that.

"MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.

OBAMA: We will take a look.

MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.

OBAMA: Nobody's talking about that."

So yeah, he was wrong, McCain that is.

McCain wasn't wrong. Media Matters isn't a good source of information, it is left wing propaganda. If you can't see that then too bad for you. I have another article with Kissinger where he says what he is actually talking about is having the Secretary of State talking to these people, as they should and is part of their job, not the President going to talk with them without preconditions. Obama hasn't said he would have members of his administration talk with them without preconditions he said "I", as in himself.

Next you are going to tell me Obama IS going to lower taxes for 95% of Americans LOL

 

[vg4030]

I almost felt sorry for McBain during the debate. If I could vote I do if for him outta sympathy

.... poor bastard:sad2:

 

[ARon]

McCain wasn't wrong. Media Matters isn't a good source of information, it is left wing propaganda. If you can't see that then too bad for you. I have another article with Kissinger where he says what he is actually talking about is having the Secretary of State talking to these people, as they should and is part of their job, not the President going to talk with them without preconditions. Obama hasn't said he would have members of his administration talk with them without preconditions he said "I", as in himself.

Next you are going to tell me Obama IS going to lower taxes for 95% of Americans LOL

Did you even read anything I just said. I already said you'd dismiss the Mediamatters thing, which you can go ahead and do, but that site and a host of other sites have transcripts of what Kissinger said on the 21st of September. I also showed transcripts of the debate where I brought up the spin about it being a presidential thing, which Obama said "No one is talking about that." If you can't see all that then too bad for you?

I know McCain is not dumb enough to not understand Obama when he says "No one is talking about that." He was trying to bring up some bullshit about the talks being presidential to make himself look right. The issue was McCain's stance on only having talks with preconditions when his own advisor had said otherwise. Frankly the Kissinger thing was a very good point from Obama. McCain knew that and had to throw out some bullshit to make it look like Obama was wrong. If that's not wrong then I guess your messiah can't do wrong either?

 

[PuffnScruff]

Did you even read anything I just said. I already said you'd dismiss the Mediamatters thing, which you can go ahead and do, but that site and a host of other sites have transcripts of what Kissinger said on the 21st of September. I also showed transcripts of the debate where I brought up the spin about it being a presidential thing, which Obama said "No one is talking about that." If you can't see all that then too bad for you?

I know McCain is not dumb enough to not understand Obama when he says "No one is talking about that." He was trying to bring up some bullshit about the talks being presidential to make himself look right. The issue was McCain's stance on only having talks with preconditions when his own advisor had said otherwise. Frankly the Kissinger thing was a very good point from Obama. McCain knew that and had to throw out some bullshit to make it look like Obama was wrong. If that's not wrong then I guess your messiah can't do wrong either?

Yes I read what you said and I don't care what MMA says because they spin everything towards a left wing point of view. If I can in here and said "Obama is a socialist and I have proof" and link to a newsmax.com article, would that make me credible in my statement? No. MMA is not credible. Now, if you posted something from a place that was not partisan and biased your argument might hold more ground, but when you are basically saying "the person on the right is wrong and I will prove it by showing posting from left winged talking points/heads" then you yourself look very one sided.

Factcheck.org even took on the spin from the first debate
FactCheck.org: FactChecking Debate No. 1
conclusion on the Kissinger topic is
"Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran. "

As I said, Kissinger was not talking about a presidental level. When he said that, on Sept. 20, it was in front of a forum that of former secretaries of state. So it makes sense that he would be talking about it in the context of people in that position to have those meetings, not a president.

"Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. "
CNN.com - Transcripts

Yes, I just posted the same transcript you just posted but highlighed a very important part you seemed to skip over.

There is a difference between two presidents sitting down without precondictions and two members of an administration doing it.

Obama hasn't said he would have his staff meet with members of these nations, he has said "as president" that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations. Do you see the difference? He has not said anything to suggest otherwise, except that he himself as president would meet with these leaders. He can't just come out and say "nobody is talking about that" in regards to the presidential level, when he has said nothing to suggest otherwise.

PolitiFact | Kissinger and Obama aren't really on the same page

Here is even more on the topic that tries to cut through the bull and their conclusion is that Obama is neglecting to mention a very important part of what Kissinger said.


And there is only one messiah, Obama. He made himself out to be it. So much so that he is mocked by British columnists and others for trying to make himself to be the second coming of christ.

 

[Jeremy]

He's only HUMAN though Steven, right? bafoon.

 

[ARon]

So you just posted the smae transcripts I did. And you just came with the same arguement I refuted about them being presidential level talks... Obama said during the debate "No one is talking about that." I dont know, it's not that big of a deal to continue on with but what the hell.

Like this one...
PolitiFact | Kissinger and Obama aren't really on the same page

At the end it says he implys that he was talking about meeting at the presidential level but that is not true.

Drugin the debate this was said:
MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.

OBAMA: Nobody's talking about that."

As I have already posted now twice. So that's why I said McCain is wrong for trying to spin the arguement again. PEACE!

 

[Jokerman]

Obama hasn't said he would have his staff meet with members of these nations, he has said "as president" that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations. Do you see the difference? He has not said anything to suggest otherwise, except that he himself as president would meet with these leaders.

Obama at the debate: "There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime."

The president is not "low-level," hence, he wasn't talking about himself there.

Look, it all boils down to the fact that Obama believes in low-level talks without preconditions with leaders of rogue states AND he also believes in eventually meeting leaders of rogue states himself without preconditions. Why? Because that low-level shit "may not work." This double position of Obama's gave McCain the chance to lump it all together to try to make Obama look naive and inexperienced.

On the other hand, McCain never ever wants to meet with them himself without preconditions. And we don't know how he feels about low-level diplomatic talks without preconditions because instead of talking about it and possibly having to agree with Obama, he was busy trying to make him look bad by blurring the distinction.

So, Obama has talked about meeting with them himself, and if he didn't make it clear at those times, he did now by saying of course preparations first, which includes low-level talks. It was something Obama was taking for granted as understood by everyone. I understood it. But Obama forgot that there's a whole team of people looking for an opening for McCain to stick his foot in by pretending not to understand something fundamental if he hasn't spelled it out for them. And there's a whole bunch of McCain supporters that are all too willing to go along with the pretense.

That's all there is to it.

 

[AmerikazMost]

Obama at the debate: "There's a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we've got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime."

The president is not "low-level," hence, he wasn't talking about himself there.

Look, it all boils down to the fact that Obama believes in low-level talks without preconditions with leaders of rogue states AND he also believes in eventually meeting leaders of rogue states himself without preconditions. Why? Because that low-level shit "may not work." This double position of Obama's gave McCain the chance to lump it all together to try to make Obama look naive and inexperienced.

On the other hand, McCain never ever wants to meet with them himself without preconditions. And we don't know how he feels about low-level diplomatic talks without preconditions because instead of talking about it and possibly having to agree with Obama, he was busy trying to make him look bad by blurring the distinction.

So, Obama has talked about meeting with them himself, and if he didn't make it clear at those times, he did now by saying of course preparations first, which includes low-level talks. It was something Obama was taking for granted as understood by everyone. I understood it. But Obama forgot that there's a whole team of people looking for an opening for McCain to stick his foot in by pretending not to understand something fundamental if he hasn't spelled it out for them. And there's a whole bunch of McCain supporters that are all too willing to go along with the pretense.

That's all there is to it.

None of this is credible because you are obviously in the tank for Obama. Anything you say in this thread on this subject must therefore be biased beyond reason.

Just to make sure you understand my position, I am attacking your credibility as the source of this analysis instead of attacking the validity of its content in order to undermine its effectiveness without actually proving anything substantial.

 

[Jokerman]

None of this is credible because you are obviously in the tank for Obama. Anything you say in this thread on this subject must therefore be biased beyond reason.

Just to make sure you understand my position, I am attacking your credibility as the source of this analysis instead of attacking the validity of its content in order to undermine its effectiveness without actually proving anything substantial.

I disagree. I don't think you've made any point here if you're not attacking the validity of its content. My post was a post about what Obama said and meant, not about how or why I might support it. Either Obama said what he said or he didn't. Easily verifiable. Either you can interpret "low-level diplomatic talks" in only one way, which I did, or you can't. I even conceded that he supports both low-level and himself meeting without preconditions. So there's no side I'm taking. I might agree with that approach, but that wasn't the point of my post.

Everyone in this thread or in the media is in the tank for either candidate. Does that make anything anyone says about them not credible? If yes, but it doesn't effect the validity of their point, then what's the point? Anyone debating evolution is either in the tank for it or not, does that make them biased beyond reason on it? There's such a thing as being objective even though you support one thing over another. You got to take each argument on its own, and either show where someone got it wrong or else agree.

I've given a lot of criticism to Obama in earlier threads and have even defended Palin, so much so that Puff has agreed. Does that make me credible because I support the other camp? Well then if I'm capable of defending the other camp when I think it warrants it, you should come away with the impression that I'm particularly objective, no matter who i want to win. See, there's a difference between the credibility of an Obama or McCain supporter who says neither really one the debate, as i did, and one who says their guy won hands down, hit it out of the park, as most supporters of each did.

 

[Jokerman]

I don't care what MMA says because they spin everything towards a left wing point of view.

This speaks to my last post. I'll listen to what anyone says and judge it at it's worth. Some things the extreme right says is valid and some things the extreme left says is. I won't automatically dismiss something because it comes from either. And, of course, I wouldn't think something was so just because anyone said it was. I would look at what was said. I don't care about credibility unless it has to do with a truth that can't be verified anywhere else. But if it's an argument, bring it on. The credibility argument would only be useful to those who don't feel they have the critical skills to take on the argument.

 

[AmerikazMost]

I disagree. I don't think you've made any point here if you're not attacking the validity of its content. My post was a post about what Obama said and meant, not about how or why I might support it. Either Obama said what he said or he didn't. Easily verifiable. Either you can interpret "low-level diplomatic talks" in only one way, which I did, or you can't. I even conceded that he supports both low-level and himself meeting without preconditions. So there's no side I'm taking. I might agree with that approach, but that wasn't the point of my post.

Everyone in this thread or in the media is in the tank for either candidate. Does that make anything anyone says about them not credible? If yes, but it doesn't effect the validity of their point, then what's the point? Anyone debating evolution is either in the tank for it or not, does that make them biased beyond reason on it? There's such a thing as being objective even though you support one thing over another. You got to take each argument on its own, and either show where someone got it wrong or else agree.

I've given a lot of criticism to Obama in earlier threads and have even defended Palin, so much so that Puff has agreed. Does that make me credible because I support the other camp? Well then if I'm capable of defending the other camp when I think it warrants it, you should come away with the impression that I'm particularly objective, no matter who i want to win. See, there's a difference between the credibility of an Obama or McCain supporter who says neither really one the debate, as i did, and one who says their guy won hands down, hit it out of the park, as most supporters of each did.

Did Jokerman not get the joke? :weird:

 

[Jokerman]

Did Jokerman not get the joke? :weird:

Yes, didn't you get mine: giving a serious answer.

 

[PuffnScruff]

None of this is credible because you are obviously in the tank for Obama. Anything you say in this thread on this subject must therefore be biased beyond reason.

Just to make sure you understand my position, I am attacking your credibility as the source of this analysis instead of attacking the validity of its content in order to undermine its effectiveness without actually proving anything substantial.

smartass

This speaks to my last post. I'll listen to what anyone says and judge it at it's worth. Some things the extreme right says is valid and some things the extreme left says is. I won't automatically dismiss something because it comes from either. And, of course, I wouldn't think something was so just because anyone said it was. I would look at what was said. I don't care about credibility unless it has to do with a truth that can't be verified anywhere else. But if it's an argument, bring it on. The credibility argument would only be useful to those who don't feel they have the critical skills to take on the argument.

I agree and I try to do that as well. But personally, I just can't take too much George Soros funded projects. The things this man has done with his money simply to distort, lie, and manipulate just to sway opinions is just disgusting.

 

[Jeremy]

Did Jokerman not get the joke? :weird:

lmao. I was about to say why isn't he directing this to Steven. That's fucking funny. Pwnage?

:love:

 

[Jokerman]

So, did anyone see the Obama-McCain townhall debate.

 

[Jokerman]

Obama won that for sure. McCain looked like a troll.

McCain- "Ronald Reagan was my hero." Then later: "My hero is a man named Teddy Roosevelt." Make up your mind.

Obama should have said, "And my hero is Bill Ayers. Yeah, right. Dream on McCainiacs."

McCain did answer the last "Zen-like" question a little stronger than Obama, but who cares. It's clear to me that McCain is clueless about how to construct something, but very aware of how to destroy it.

I do wish Obama would get off this middle class kick he's on to get more votes and talk about the poor class. He's gone so radically far off the message of true change and so far center right, that he risks losing the progressive voter, who will vote for Nader or not at all.

 

[Glockmatic]

from MediaCurves.Com - A Service of HCD Research Inc.

Repulicans:
Obama: 20%
McCain: 68%

Democrats:
Obama: 84%
McCain: 10%

Independents:
Obama: 52%
McCain: 34%

 

[raywaters11]

i loved it when mccain said, speak softly n carry a big stick, i dont tell ppl my strategies. obama speaks loudly.


and obama was like, this is coming from the guy who sang bomb bomb bomb iran... thats not speaking very softly.


lmfao, burn.

 

[Glockmatic]

Something that annoyed me was McCain said that he had a plan to fix a bunch of shit but never said what it was, just that he will fix it. People want to hear the plan!

 

[Da_Funk]

Something that annoyed me was McCain said that he had a plan to fix a bunch of shit but never said what it was, just that he will fix it. People want to hear the plan!

Kinda like how he said he could fix healthcare, energy issues, and the economy all at the same time. Its like how do you plan on doing that? Well we just can!!

Does anyone else find it annoying as fuck how McCain kept saying my friends. Holy fuck I wanted to throw a rock at him that was annoying.