Presidential Debate Round 1 Mccain V Obama

[classy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
You tell me who won.

Here's some straight talk.

LOL

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I watched the debate and thought it extremely disrespectful that McCain wouldn't look at Obama directly. Obama directly addressed McCain throughout the debate but McCain rarely even glanced at Obama the entire time. Extremely disrespectful IMO.

I thought Obama's comments and opinions were well thought out, he was articulate, engaging and came off as someone who has a plan and is an intelligent who can think on his feet.

McCain stuck to his bullet points and didn't come off as having much to say other than to attack Obama. I thought he came off as a bitter old man.

Obama 1
McCain 0

I think in the next few days most people are going to stick to the fact that McCain wouldnt look at Obama imo that is what most people are going to remember from this debate.

How it plays out though will be the real trick.

Is that what the BHO fluffing left is going to use coming out of the debate? Talk about desperate....

IF BHO won like the BHO fluffers keep trying to claim(big surprise) then don't you think you'd have something more real than "he didn't look at him".

:roll:

For someone who doesn't have a horse in this race, you sure are partisan (and arrogant).

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I watched the debate and thought it extremely disrespectful that McCain wouldn't look at Obama directly. Obama directly addressed McCain throughout the debate but McCain rarely even glanced at Obama the entire time. Extremely disrespectful IMO.

I thought Obama's comments and opinions were well thought out, he was articulate, engaging and came off as someone who has a plan and is an intelligent who can think on his feet.

McCain stuck to his bullet points and didn't come off as having much to say other than to attack Obama. I thought he came off as a bitter old man.

Obama 1
McCain 0

I think in the next few days most people are going to stick to the fact that McCain wouldnt look at Obama imo that is what most people are going to remember from this debate.

How it plays out though will be the real trick.

Is that what the BHO fluffing left is going to use coming out of the debate? Talk about desperate....

IF BHO won like the BHO fluffers keep trying to claim(big surprise) then don't you think you'd have something more real than "he didn't look at him".

:roll:

For someone who doesn't have a horse in this race, you sure are partisan (and arrogant).

he doesnt have a "horse in this race" so something else is clouding his judgement and impartiality.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I watched the debate and thought it extremely disrespectful that McCain wouldn't look at Obama directly. Obama directly addressed McCain throughout the debate but McCain rarely even glanced at Obama the entire time. Extremely disrespectful IMO.

I thought Obama's comments and opinions were well thought out, he was articulate, engaging and came off as someone who has a plan and is an intelligent who can think on his feet.

McCain stuck to his bullet points and didn't come off as having much to say other than to attack Obama. I thought he came off as a bitter old man.

Obama 1
McCain 0

I think in the next few days most people are going to stick to the fact that McCain wouldnt look at Obama imo that is what most people are going to remember from this debate.

How it plays out though will be the real trick.

Is that what the BHO fluffing left is going to use coming out of the debate? Talk about desperate....

IF BHO won like the BHO fluffers keep trying to claim(big surprise) then don't you think you'd have something more real than "he didn't look at him".

:roll:

For someone who doesn't have a horse in this race, you sure are partisan (and arrogant).

A little defensive are we?:laugh: I am just pointing out how ridiculous of an "issue" this is and how stupid BHO fluffers have to be to think it's an issue that should be brought up over and over. Plus, since according to the poll thread - all you BHO bots think he won(duh) yet this is all you can come out of the debate with? Pretty lame and desperate...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: OrByte

he doesnt have a "horse in this race" so something else is clouding his judgement and impartiality.

Who said not having a horse in this race means being "impartial"? Why only the BHO fluffers who get defensive when people post against the messiah BHO. I think the cloudy judgement has more to do with the blinders you guys seem to have on than with those of us who aren't going to vote for either of these guys.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I watched the debate and thought it extremely disrespectful that McCain wouldn't look at Obama directly. Obama directly addressed McCain throughout the debate but McCain rarely even glanced at Obama the entire time. Extremely disrespectful IMO.

I thought Obama's comments and opinions were well thought out, he was articulate, engaging and came off as someone who has a plan and is an intelligent who can think on his feet.

McCain stuck to his bullet points and didn't come off as having much to say other than to attack Obama. I thought he came off as a bitter old man.

Obama 1
McCain 0

I think in the next few days most people are going to stick to the fact that McCain wouldnt look at Obama imo that is what most people are going to remember from this debate.

How it plays out though will be the real trick.

Is that what the BHO fluffing left is going to use coming out of the debate? Talk about desperate....

IF BHO won like the BHO fluffers keep trying to claim(big surprise) then don't you think you'd have something more real than "he didn't look at him".

:roll:

For someone who doesn't have a horse in this race, you sure are partisan (and arrogant).

A little defensive are we?:laugh: I am just pointing out how ridiculous of an "issue" this is and how stupid BHO fluffers have to be to think it's an issue that should be brought up over and over. Plus, since according to the poll thread - all you BHO bots think he won(duh) yet this is all you can come out of the debate with? Pretty lame and desperate...

I voted for Ron Paul in that poll. And, for someone whose head is stuck deep, deep inside Cheney's backside, I wouldn't be the last person talking about "fluffing". If you don't think poster and demeanor is important you need to remember the 1960, 1980, and 2000 debates where Nixon and Gore came off as arrogant and Reagan came off as funny. McCain came off as condescending.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I watched the debate and thought it extremely disrespectful that McCain wouldn't look at Obama directly. Obama directly addressed McCain throughout the debate but McCain rarely even glanced at Obama the entire time. Extremely disrespectful IMO.

I thought Obama's comments and opinions were well thought out, he was articulate, engaging and came off as someone who has a plan and is an intelligent who can think on his feet.

McCain stuck to his bullet points and didn't come off as having much to say other than to attack Obama. I thought he came off as a bitter old man.

Obama 1
McCain 0

I think in the next few days most people are going to stick to the fact that McCain wouldnt look at Obama imo that is what most people are going to remember from this debate.

How it plays out though will be the real trick.

Is that what the BHO fluffing left is going to use coming out of the debate? Talk about desperate....

IF BHO won like the BHO fluffers keep trying to claim(big surprise) then don't you think you'd have something more real than "he didn't look at him".

:roll:

For someone who doesn't have a horse in this race, you sure are partisan (and arrogant).

A little defensive are we?:laugh: I am just pointing out how ridiculous of an "issue" this is and how stupid BHO fluffers have to be to think it's an issue that should be brought up over and over. Plus, since according to the poll thread - all you BHO bots think he won(duh) yet this is all you can come out of the debate with? Pretty lame and desperate...

I voted for Ron Paul in that poll. And, for someone whose head is stuck deep, deep inside Cheney's backside, I wouldn't be the last person talking about "fluffing". If you don't think poster and demeanor is important you need to remember the 1960, 1980, and 2000 debates where Nixon and Gore came off as arrogant and Reagan came off as funny. McCain came off as condescending.

Only a BHO fluffer would think it's "condescending". IMO, it's an overblown "issue" that's going to backfire on you guy. But go ahead and keep trying if you wish.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

he doesnt have a "horse in this race" so something else is clouding his judgement and impartiality.

Who said not having a horse in this race means being "impartial"? Why only the BHO fluffers who get defensive when people post against the messiah BHO. I think the cloudy judgement has more to do with the blinders you guys seem to have on than with those of us who aren't going to vote for either of these guys.

quite honestly Profjohn is a better debater than you and that isn't saying much.

You simply arent worth a further response other than repeating what I said earlier that you ignored

so here you go:

ACTUALLY I think BHO and McCain both had their good and their bad.

But the lasting impression, one that most viewers I THINK will take away from this debate, is the fact that McCain didn't look at Obama. The moderator even enouraged direct candidate to candidate communication and McCains behavior imo implied he wanted nothing to do with that.

Now, spin it however you want. McCain thinks he is better than Obama, McCain was angry at Obama, McCain was afraid of Obama. I am sure you can come up with other ideas...you spin so well.

But there is nothing desparate about this, McCains body language was on display just as much as Obama's was. And there were stark contrasts between the two in this area.

Do you think you deserve credit or something because apparently you are voting third party? How quaint. yes, you are special CsG. :roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
You tell me who won.

Here's some straight talk.

Like I said last night the spinning is completely insane:

9-27-2008 Furious spinning on TV after presidential debate

It was hard to tell if there were more disagreements voiced during the presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama or after it on television.

The networks' pundits moved quickly Friday to put into perspective a debate seen by tens of millions of Americans, although a clear winner didn't emerge. It was a reflection of cautiousness, the closeness of the race and the influence of furious spinning by both campaigns.

"There was no knockout, and maybe no knockdown, but McCain was on the offensive throughout," commentator William Kristol said on Fox News Channel.

His fellow panelist, Juan Williams, quickly retorted, "I thought Barack Obama put John McCain on the defensive all night."

Consensus for either side will undoubtedly harden as the debate quickly gets reduced to sound bites and Youtube clips.
=============================================

The titles of the YouTube clips looks like Republican P&Ners are working overtime:

Obama FLIP FLOPS on Iraq!

Obama caught cheating at Presidential Debate "Senator Obama doesn't understand"

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I watched the debate and thought it extremely disrespectful that McCain wouldn't look at Obama directly. Obama directly addressed McCain throughout the debate but McCain rarely even glanced at Obama the entire time. Extremely disrespectful IMO.

I thought Obama's comments and opinions were well thought out, he was articulate, engaging and came off as someone who has a plan and is an intelligent who can think on his feet.

McCain stuck to his bullet points and didn't come off as having much to say other than to attack Obama. I thought he came off as a bitter old man.

Obama 1
McCain 0

I think in the next few days most people are going to stick to the fact that McCain wouldnt look at Obama imo that is what most people are going to remember from this debate.

How it plays out though will be the real trick.

Is that what the BHO fluffing left is going to use coming out of the debate? Talk about desperate....

IF BHO won like the BHO fluffers keep trying to claim(big surprise) then don't you think you'd have something more real than "he didn't look at him".

:roll:

For someone who doesn't have a horse in this race, you sure are partisan (and arrogant).

A little defensive are we?:laugh: I am just pointing out how ridiculous of an "issue" this is and how stupid BHO fluffers have to be to think it's an issue that should be brought up over and over. Plus, since according to the poll thread - all you BHO bots think he won(duh) yet this is all you can come out of the debate with? Pretty lame and desperate...

I voted for Ron Paul in that poll. And, for someone whose head is stuck deep, deep inside Cheney's backside, I wouldn't be the last person talking about "fluffing". If you don't think poster and demeanor is important you need to remember the 1960, 1980, and 2000 debates where Nixon and Gore came off as arrogant and Reagan came off as funny. McCain came off as condescending.

Only a BHO fluffer would think it's "condescending". IMO, it's an overblown "issue" that's going to backfire on you guy. But go ahead and keep trying if you wish.

If the Great Sage of Iowa says, it must be so. Let us now stop this banal fluffing and return to our mediocre lives:roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: OrByte

he doesnt have a "horse in this race" so something else is clouding his judgement and impartiality.

Who said not having a horse in this race means being "impartial"? Why only the BHO fluffers who get defensive when people post against the messiah BHO. I think the cloudy judgement has more to do with the blinders you guys seem to have on than with those of us who aren't going to vote for either of these guys.

quite honestly Profjohn is a better debater than you and that isn't saying much.

You simply arent worth a further response other than repeating what I said earlier that you ignored

so here you go:

ACTUALLY I think BHO and McCain both had their good and their bad.

But the lasting impression, one that most viewers I THINK will take away from this debate, is the fact that McCain didn't look at Obama. The moderator even enouraged direct candidate to candidate communication and McCains behavior imo implied he wanted nothing to do with that.

Now, spin it however you want. McCain thinks he is better than Obama, McCain was angry at Obama, McCain was afraid of Obama. I am sure you can come up with other ideas...you spin so well.

But there is nothing desparate about this, McCains body language was on display just as much as Obama's was. And there were stark contrasts between the two in this area.

Do you think you deserve credit or something because apparently you are voting third party? How quaint. yes, you are special CsG. :roll:

:laugh: I responded to YOUR insinuation that one should be impartial if they don't have horse in this race. YOU are incorrect and quite frankly, if you want to talk about debating - you didn't even respond to the point at hand - you went off on some other BS that has nothing to do with my post about your insinuation. But whatever I guess, I'm sure most of your types will continue on with your BS no matter what reality dictates.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

:laugh: I responded to YOUR insinuation that one should be impartial if they don't have horse in this race. YOU are incorrect and quite frankly, if you want to talk about debating - you didn't even respond to the point at hand - you went off on some other BS that has nothing to do with my post about your insinuation.

But whatever I guess, I'm sure most of your types will continue on with your BS no matter what reality dictates.

and what is your type?

 

[jpeyton]

Why are you guys even bothering with this "furious spinning"?

Just look at the polls. Every reputable pollster showed Obama had a clear advantage among independents, which are the only group that matters because we know Obama has brought home the Dems and McCain brought home the Repubs.

 

[thirtythree]

FactCheck.org has an article up on the debate - Text

In the summary:

"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."

And Obama never said Kissinger favored presidential talks.

Obama: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran ? guess what ? without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

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.

 

[Ballatician]

Originally posted by: thirtythree
FactCheck.org has an article up on the debate - Text

In the summary:

"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."

And Obama never said Kissinger favored presidential talks.

Obama: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran ? guess what ? without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

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.

Yea, everyone and their mom read the article about all the sec. of state saying we should engage Iran. This is just a ridiculous point but I guess since McCain is friends with Kissinger he expects them to agree no matter what.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

:laugh: I responded to YOUR insinuation that one should be impartial if they don't have horse in this race. YOU are incorrect and quite frankly, if you want to talk about debating - you didn't even respond to the point at hand - you went off on some other BS that has nothing to do with my post about your insinuation.

But whatever I guess, I'm sure most of your types will continue on with your BS no matter what reality dictates.

and what is your type?

I'm American and that's my type as for ^ well he seems to group all Obama supporters together and refuse to acknowledge any facts. Seems like a hateful guy to me.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Yes, ear marks should be illegal.

They do it for expediency. It's fucked up but it gets things done a lot faster than if they needed new legislation for this and that. They made the point pretty thoroughly (BHO did) that it was 18 billion bucks and pretty trivial compared to the 300 billion + amounts that we are dealing in these days.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
McCain has a blinking problem.

I became aware of the fact that he would never look at his opponent. Jim Lehrer's remark early on that he was determined to make these guys relate to each other was heard by Obama. He addressed McCain a lot of the time, looking right at him, but McCain continued throughout to never look at Obama (This was pointed out afterward too by an ABC commentator). It was weird. It suggests he's uneasy, dishonest. It even suggests the possibility of racism. Whatever it is, score 3 points for Obama.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Yes, ear marks should be illegal.

They do it for expediency. It's fucked up but it gets things done a lot faster than if they needed new legislation for this and that. They made the point pretty thoroughly (BHO did) that it was 18 billion bucks and pretty trivial compared to the 300 billion + amounts that we are dealing in these days.

So do Roofies.

Maybe if they were made illegal then they would be forced to really decide the issue at hand.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: chuckywang
Eh, debates are stupid. An informed voter knows the stances of both candidates. Debates are all about who is more eloquent that day. It's all about semantics.

The majority of the electorate are not well informed. The votes of the informed and uninformed count the same. If you're so well informed that taking in a debate is a waste of your time, fine.

It's not all about "stances." Those are often about posturing. Seeing the candidates discuss the issues gives you a chance to sense who's for real and who isn't. It gives you a chance to devine what would/might happen in the future. You better believe that presidential debates aren't going away any time soon.

 

[Muse]

I'm hearing in the media that the first debate was scored a win for Obama. Absent a haymaker from McCain camp, it looks like Obama/Biden.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Yes, ear marks should be illegal.

They do it for expediency. It's fucked up but it gets things done a lot faster than if they needed new legislation for this and that. They made the point pretty thoroughly (BHO did) that it was 18 billion bucks and pretty trivial compared to the 300 billion + amounts that we are dealing in these days.

So do Roofies.

Maybe if they were made illegal then they would be forced to really decide the issue at hand.

You would think so but that's not really how it works. Sometimes a Rep might have a legitimate beef against a bill but have to be 'bought-off' with $100k for a firetruck in their district. It ain't pretty but that's how stuff gets moved forward without even more 'ticky-tack'' amendments attached or bloviating gas bags giving endless speeches.

I still think you need to give each Senator/Representative a set amount of money for any use within their state and district. As noted, stop arguing about the $15 billion and fix the mutha-f%$!-ing $300 billion ...

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Yes, ear marks should be illegal.

They do it for expediency. It's fucked up but it gets things done a lot faster than if they needed new legislation for this and that. They made the point pretty thoroughly (BHO did) that it was 18 billion bucks and pretty trivial compared to the 300 billion + amounts that we are dealing in these days.

earmarks are easy to pass because they get attached to bills that, if voted against, make you look terrible.


so let's say there's a bill about school funding, but gets earmarked with a bunch of BS and you vote against it. well now you've just voted against improving america's education, and you damn well bet your opponent will make light of that next election.