John McCain speaks TOO SLOWW .. ?

[smelter]

Who wouldn't want this?

Palin parroted every keyword given to her by handlers, all stuffed into an unintelligible, endless paragraph of run-on sentences. It had neither a discernible beginning nor a logical end. It was a perfect example of throwing handfuls of shit against the wall and hoping some of it sticks!

 

[noah617]

Palin parroted every keyword given to her by handlers, all stuffed into an unintelligible, endless paragraph of run-on sentences. It had neither a discernible beginning nor a logical end. It was a perfect example of throwing handfuls of shit against the wall and hoping some of it sticks!

The funniest part of the SNL skit last night was when Tina Fey used Palin's actual responses to Couric. It's funny when it comes out of Fey's mouth but pretty damn scary when it comes from Palin's.

 

[syntax]

When McCain was hanging out with people like Kissinger, Obama was hanging with people like Ayers and Wright.

You post shit that I read but usually disregard. This statement is beyond stupid and the analogy is asinine.

 

[Telstra]

^ Kissinger was a war criminal .!!!

 

[NickCole]

^ A spending freeze, that carves out the most out of control area of spending, doesn't define how long it will last for or what its consequences will be, makes sense to you.

I said it sounds like a fine idea at the moment.

It's not a plan but at least it's a specific response, a solid idea for a start.

But saying that you don't know how much you will need to delay and cut back on your expenditures, until you know how much revenue you have to spend, is bullshit to you.

That's not an idea, it's not even the start of a plan, gives nothing to let us know how Obama would begin to address the situation as President. It's not the response of a leader, it's the response of a follower, and a timid one at that.

OBVIOUSLY none of us knows how much will need to be delayed or cut back. It's a bullshit response.

 

[NickCole]

Originally Posted by NickCole
When McCain was hanging out with people like Kissinger, Obama was hanging with people like Ayers and Wright.

You post shit that I read but usually disregard. This statement is beyond stupid and the analogy is asinine.

It's the truth.

We can learn a lot from looking at the truth rather than believing propagandistic words.

 

[Spensed]

^ When you start learning from the truth, let us know. LOL.

 

[NickCole]

Specific, other than war vets he didn't say what would be frozen and what wouldn't. And what would the consequences of a government freeze be? Did he get into that? Nope, he just like big drastic responses that comfort people.

A spending freeze is not comforting.

And he just threw it out there when Lehrer pressed them both to at least offer something in response. "How about a spending freeze?" he said. And I liked that he said it because it seemed like an honest attempt to answer the question from his head rather than pre-fab talking point.

 

[Spensed]

^ You like a stock answer about an undefined spending freeze, because it's honest and not just a meaningless filler response, when McCain says it.

But you find Obama's comment, that he would pace and adjust his programs to match the resources available, to be "bullshit. Unmitigated bull."

Gee it sounds like you really are having a problem deciding which of the two to support. LOL.

 

[NickCole]

^ You like a stock answer about an undefined spending freeze, because it's honest and not just a meaningless filler response, when McCain says it.

It was a response that spoke directly to the question asked. Straightforward. I liked that he at least did that much.

But you find Obama's comment, that he would pace and adjust his programs to match the resources available, to be "bullshit. Unmitigated bull."

OF COURSE he's going to pace and adjust his programs to match the resources available. ANYbody who's President will. The President will try to get through the programs he wants and they will be adjusted to match the resources available. It was a meaningless response. Utter bullshit. Obama didn't have the balls to respond directly to the question.

 

[Spensed]

It was a response that spoke directly to the question asked. Straightforward. I liked that he at least did that much.




OF COURSE he's going to pace and adjust his programs to match the resources available. ANYbody who's President will. The President will try to get through the programs he wants and they will be adjusted to match the resources available. It was a meaningless response. Utter bullshit. Obama didn't have the balls to respond directly to the question.

There's no distinction between the two answers. Both are stock responses.

Saying that you'll adjust what you can do to what you have to do it with is no more bullshit than talking about a spending freeze, which excludes the largest part of the spending involved, doesn't define how long it would last for and doesn't weigh what the adverse consequences would be.

That much shouldn't be beyond the wit of even a pro-McCain partisan. But clearly it is.

 

[RandomAccess]

Specific, other than war vets he didn't say what would be frozen and what wouldn't. And what would the consequences of a government freeze be? Did he get into that? Nope, he just like big drastic responses that comfort people.

I have to agree with Marley here. McCain's "freeze" is a fine example of the Republican tactic of making sweeping decisions/changes based on anecdotal evidence. They did it in '92 with their Contract [STRIKE]on[/STRIKE] with America. They've been doing it wholesale ever since. They seem to see everything as a black and white issue, totally disregarding all the multitudes of gray shades in the middle.

The correct answer to Lehrer's question is far too long and involved to fit into the time allocated for the debate. Obama's answer was much closer to correct and detailed, in the long run.

 

[NickCole]

There's no distinction between the two answers. Both are stock responses.

Saying that you'll adjust what you can do to what you have to do it with is no more bullshit than talking about a spending freeze, which excludes the largest part of the spending involved, doesn't define how long it would last for and doesn't weigh what the adverse consequences would be.

That much shouldn't be beyond the wit of even a pro-McCain partisan. But clearly it is.

What's with Obama supporters and nasty personal insults. Your favorite kind of tag line. Where's the "LOL" that's supposed to fool everyone into believing you're a nice guy who doesn't do that?

Look, a spending freeze is a specific action, especially since McCain went on to list the few programs he wouldn't freeze.

Saying you'll pace and adjust spending to fit with available revenue is not a specific action. That's what anybody will do, there's no other choice. The specific action is which spending would Obama pace and adjust or which spending he would not, or how he'd pace and adjust it.

The distinction between the two is specificity, which is what Lehrer was asking for in the question he repeated several times to the two candidates. Obama was too ignorant or too cowardly to answer; McCain stepped up and answered.

 

[NickCole]

I have to agree with Marley here. McCain's "freeze" is a fine example of the Republican tactic of making sweeping decisions/changes based on anecdotal evidence. They did it in '92 with their Contract [strike]on[/strike] with America. They've been doing it wholesale ever since. They seem to see everything as a black and white issue, totally disregarding all the multitudes of gray shades in the middle.

The correct answer to Lehrer's question is far too long and involved to fit into the time allocated for the debate. Obama's answer was much closer to correct and detailed, in the long run.

The Contract With America and Bill Clinton as President was the last time we had leadership in this country.

Both did some good stuff and some bad stuff, but at least they moved forward with actual substantive legislation.

McCain's response was the response of an authentic man with some character. Obama's response was the bullshit we've been getting from the George Bushes in the WH and Congress the past several years. They say nice things, they smile nice, they're likable, they lie about what's going on or they don't understand it. Maybe a spending freeze is not the best idea but at least it was a man able to stand before a microphone and respond with an answer that actually said something.

Our great presidents have not been Democrats or Republicans, they've been leaders. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, even Harry Truman ... in the end it doesn't matter which party they come from, it's their character and authenticity that matter.

 

[RandomAccess]

The Contract With America and Bill Clinton as President was the last time we had leadership in this country.

Both did some good stuff and some bad stuff, but at least they moved forward with actual substantive legislation.

McCain's response was the response of an authentic man with some character. Obama's response was the bullshit we've been getting from the George Bushes in the WH and Congress the past several years. They say nice things, they smile nice, they're likable, they lie about what's going on or they don't understand it. Maybe a spending freeze is not the best idea but at least it was a man able to stand before a microphone and respond with an answer that actually said something.

Our great presidents have not been Democrats or Republicans, they've been leaders. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, even Harry Truman ... in the end it doesn't matter which party they come from, it's their character and authenticity that matter.

Sorry Nick, but sweeping changes do not a good president make. To just say that he's going to freeze spending, wholesale, is irresponsible to put it nicely. Specific, yes. Overcorrection in the extreme? Absolutely. It's akin to the driver of an 18 wheeler slamming on the brakes and spinning the steering wheel on an icy road.

 

[NickCole]

Sorry Nick, but sweeping changes do not a good president make. To just say that he's going to freeze spending, wholesale, is irresponsible to put it nicely. Specific, yes. Overcorrection in the extreme? Absolutely. It's akin to the driver of an 18 wheeler slamming on the brakes and spinning the steering wheel on an icy road.

It's not a proposal he's presenting to Congress, it's a response to a question from a moderator at a debate.

Neither Obama nor McCain is offering detailed proposals, which is unfortunate on its own; what we can learn from their responses at that debate is about the character and courage of each man, the quality of leadership and willingness to face a challenge (in this case a straightforward question) head-on or the weakness that compels him to shrink from it.

 

[Spensed]

^ True, unlike McCain, Obama did show character, courage, leadership and a willingness to face a challenge head-on.

And that's why, unlike McCain, Obama is generally perceived, by polls and pundits alike, to have won the debate.

 

[NickCole]

^ True, unlike McCain, Obama did show character, courage, leadership and a willingness to face a challenge head-on.

And that's why, unlike McCain, Obama is generally perceived, by polls and pundits alike, to have won the debate.

George Bush was generally perceived, by polls and pundits alike, to have won the debates with Gore.

That wasn't a sign of authentic character, courage, leadership or a willingness to face a challenge head-on, it was manufactured through tricks of personality and prepared technique, much, I fear, like Obama.

And look where that got us.

As I did with Gore and Bush, I'm assessing Obama and McCain by what they say and do along with what we know of their history and experience.

 

[NickCole]

^ Or what you fabricate and wish were true of their history and experience.

What's this about Bush 'winning' the debates against Gore? As you continue to just say things and assume that your mere utterance melds reality to your whim, I found this via Google: http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache...te+gore&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=opera

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/956062.stm

Your "understanding" is always very flat. Like Obama's.


Here's a more nuanced analysis:

Not-So-Great Expectations: Media's spin favors Bush -- again



The media's "analysis" of the first presidential debate in 2000 illustrates the impact of Bush's lowered expectations in determining a debate "winner":

• Mara Liasson, NPR national political correspondent and FOX News Channel political correspondent: "I thought George W. Bush more than held his own. I think he was the person the expectations game had disfavored for this contest... I don't think anything happened tonight that's going to drastically change the race, although, given the expectations, you could say Bush won." [FOX News Channel, Special Report with Brit Hume, 10/3/00].
• Bob Schieffer, host of CBS's Face the Nation: Well, I think, clearly tonight, if anyone gained from this debate, it was George Bush because he showed that people will argue back and forth over the positions they took, but, clearly, he seemed to have as much of a grasp of the issues as -- as Al Gore did tonight. So in that sense, I think Bush gained a lot [CBS News presidential debate coverage, 10/3/00].
• Lyn Nofziger, former assistant to the president for political affairs in the Reagan administration: "You'd have to call it a draw, which means that Bush wins it because of the lower expectations for him." [The Washington Times, 10/4/00]
• Ross Baker, Rutgers University professor and House and Senate author: "Like an insurgent army, Gov. Bush won by not losing. He seemed to have kept up with Vice President Gore. Bush did not seem uninformed, he did not stumble over his words, he seemed likeable and down to earth." [USA Today, 10/4/00].
• Dallas Morning News: "The fact that both candidates did what they needed to do left the evening in a tie. Using the complicated math of politics, a tie gives Bush the advantage coming out of Tuesday night's debate. He went into the ring against Gore's well-developed debating skills and emerged intact with his message about empowering citizens." [Editorial, 10/4/00].

http://mediamatters.org/items/200409280009

"Winning" and "losing" these events is determined by a combination of individual response and recall, spin by the campaigns (before and after) and spin by pundits and supporters. All things considered, Bush was generally perceived to have "won," whether it was low expectations, Gore "sighing," the lists of "lies" Bush's camp attributed to Gore afterward, or any number of other things. And although right after the debate last Friday, almost everybody was saying it was a draw, the spin and BS that followed gave the "win" to Obama.

 

[Lostlover]

^ Or what you fabricate and wish were true of their history and experience.

What's this about Bush 'winning' the debates against Gore? As you continue to just say things and assume that your mere utterance melds reality to your whim, I found this via Google: http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache...te+gore&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=opera

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/956062.stm

Porque hablas con el?