Second Presidential Debate - Discussion

[Dobson73]

Both these candidates are at best a disappointment and at worst will be a disaster.

In the middle of an economic crisis, after supporting an $800 Billion bailout of Wall Street that even they admit isn't a good plan, neither of them has an economic plan or even a hint of one, and neither has even a short list for Treasury Secretary.

And health care is not a right, it's a responsibility. Excellent question. The responses were revealing.

I don't think you and I see eye to eye all the time NickCole but this time we do. Obama is coming across as a more professional, good person but is not inspiring and McCain is coming across as nasty and incompetent.

I just wish one of them had the balls to step up and to give us ("us" being the millions of people around the world who look to the US for leadership) something to believe in.

 

[NickCole]

I don't think you and I see eye to eye all the time NickCole but this time we do. Obama is coming across as a more professional, good person but is not inspiring and McCain is coming across as nasty and incompetent.

I agree that's how they're coming across.

I just wish one of them had the balls to step up and to give us ("us" being the millions of people around the world who look to the US for leadership) something to believe in.

Neither Obama nor McCain is a leader. Obama's a manufactured candidate whose only genuine concern is self-aggrandizement, and McCain is like the Energizer bunny, he just keeps going in whatever direction he can but the only purpose is to keep going.

They're a disappointment but the real problem is American adults who are not grown up enough to demand something substantive.

 

[Spensed]

Obama came across as intelligent, articulate, cool under pressure and as someone with good judgment, much more so than many of the recent Presidents before they took office and, in many cases, afterwards.

McCain was stiff both in his gait and in his thinking. The "That One" remark was to me a filler comment for a senior moment, when he couldn't remember Obama's name. The more you see and learn about McCain the more even more like Bush he seems.

So far, Obama's played the debates really well. They look like close calls, but they have the effect of reassuring people that Obama knows what he's talking about and is a safe candidate.

Like the last debate, the snap polls show Obama winning by a margin of 10% or more.​

 

[evanrick]

I really liked when he said "Not you Tom." to Tom Brokaw when he asked about the new treasury secretary. I thought it was so funny I watched it about 5 times. Sure Obama will crush McCain in November but its funny watching McCain make his jokes.

 

[hotatlboi]

I also disagree with Obama's characterization that health care should be a right, but I think he answered that question poorly. His health care plan is not really making it into that.

Health care as a right is what a lot of European countries have. There are large taxes everyone pays to provide a system of free health care for everyone. That's not what Obama is proposing. Everyone would still have to pay for their coverage like they do today. People can keep their existing plans or choose to purchase the coverage members of Congress get, but it would not be a free service guaranteed by the government. That's what I think of when thinking about it as a "right".

 

[future_boy]

this debate was so boring. I can't stand one more of this,I really prefer the VP Debate. Somehow it's more interesting

 

[KrisHawkXXX]

Obama is not answering the question on health care.

He is just hitting his talking points.

I see he attended debate camp.

where do u live.. the south? Or you like getting a rise out of people. Obama is a VERY gifted speaker. You don't think PALIN attended debate camp?

 

[hotatlboi]

where do u live.. the south? Or you like getting a rise out of people.

the latter.

 

[Kulindahr]

Brokaw did a good job because he set the stage for the candidates to reveal more about themselves.

Both these candidates are at best a disappointment and at worst will be a disaster.

In the middle of an economic crisis, after supporting an $800 Billion bailout of Wall Street that even they admit isn't a good plan, neither of them has an economic plan or even a hint of one, and neither has even a short list for Treasury Secretary.

And health care is not a right, it's a responsibility. Excellent question. The responses were revealing.

McCain will be a disaster, in known and predictable ways, obvious from his past.
Obama could be a disaster, but in unpredictable ways; we just don't know his mettle.

The Founding Fathers expected men of proven character to either step forward or be urged forward for the good of the Republic. . . . Boy, were they off!

 

[hotatlboi]

The Founding Fathers expected men of proven character to either step forward or be urged forward for the good of the Republic. . . . Boy, were they off!

I agree with this. Very few men of true character are apt to step into the political arena these days imo.

 

[accorn]

The Founding Fathers expected men of proven character to either step forward or be urged forward for the good of the Republic. . . . Boy, were they off!

I think only jefferson believed that and even he was hypocritical with this notion. Fact of the matter is the founding fathers expected and aristocratic class to rule the country, hence why we had the electoral system. They expected groups of ambitious men to come up to play in politcs, fighting in government for their own interest. I believe it was madison who in the federalist papers wrote that "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." This is the reason why the founding fathers made a system of check and balances and Congress into two separate houses.

Let us not fool ourselves, politicians are of a different social class as the founding fathers have always expected.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree with this. Very few men of true character are apt to step into the political arena these days imo.

We demand near-godhood from our opponents, while excusing great corruption in our favorites. Who would want to endure that?

 

[Kulindahr]

I think only jefferson believed that and even he was hypocritical with this notion. Fact of the matter is the founding fathers expected and aristocratic class to rule the country, hence why we had the electoral system. They expected groups of ambitious men to come up to play in politcs, fighting in government for their own interest. I believe it was madison who in the federalist papers wrote that "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." This is the reason why the founding fathers made a system of check and balances and Congress into two separate houses.

Let us not fool ourselves, politicians are of a different social class as the founding fathers have always expected.

Madison believed in the "principle of statesmanship", that in times of crisis true patriots and statesmen would rise up to lead.
Of course none of them counted on a government bloated far beyond the embrace of the Constitution, handling such wealth that no one in the world could have envisioned -- wealth and abuse of power that attract the most venal. They expected a small government, where those "aristocrats" would face off as if it were a hobby, leaving citizens free to run their own lives. Instead we have a government more oppressive than anything George III wanted to impose.

 

[accorn]

Madison believed in the "principle of statesmanship", that in times of crisis true patriots and statesmen would rise up to lead.
Of course none of them counted on a government bloated far beyond the embrace of the Constitution, handling such wealth that no one in the world could have envisioned -- wealth and abuse of power that attract the most venal. They expected a small government, where those "aristocrats" would face off as if it were a hobby, leaving citizens free to run their own lives. Instead we have a government more oppressive than anything George III wanted to impose.

The size of government was really the tension that hamilton and jefferson had but...Having borrowed from locke and the rest of those european political philosophers the founding fathers knew quite well that corruption and greed was part and parcel to human nature. These people did not necessarily believe in the goodness of man. Jefferson wanted a country of yeoman farmers (whom he thought were true well balanced individuals not corrupted by greed) but the hamiltonians did not, and we see who won that argument (industry vs. agrarian society). Even jefferson believed that only a few true gentlemen were going to be in politics and thus that is why the house needed to be as big as it was and of course the Senate was supposed to be the center of true politics home of the aristocrats.

 

[White Eagle]

Y'all remember in the debate McNasty quoted this:

While we were working to eliminate these pork barrel earmarks he [Senator Obama, or "that one"] voted for nearly $1 billion in pork barrel earmark projects. Including $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?

Well, it turns out to be another lie. Please read this link, it refers to 16 science links.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/08/1518907.aspx

Also on McNastys quote this is what happened to the $3million "overhead projector".

That request fell by the wayside, and the funds never came through. But McCain is still trying to beat Obama over the head with the non-existent earmark, complaining about the "overhead projector" during Tuesday night's debate.

There was no $3 million dollar projector. Also, my friends, it was a "Zeiss Mark VI star projector: a venerable piece of precision fabricated equipment that projects the stars, constellations, and other objects inside the planetarium dome."

 

[Kulindahr]

^ So much for McCain supporting science!
I know people from my high school graduating class who went into science careers, inspired by a visit to our local planetarium -- and of course its "overhead projector".

I think maybe I'll write a letter to the editor here, titled "McCain Opposes Science Education".

 

[NickCole]

Y'all remember in the debate McNasty quoted this:

Well, it turns out to be another lie. Please read this link, it refers to 16 science links.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/08/1518907.aspx

Also on McNastys quote this is what happened to the $3million "overhead projector".

There was no $3 million dollar projector. Also, my friends, it was a "Zeiss Mark VI star projector: a venerable piece of precision fabricated equipment that projects the stars, constellations, and other objects inside the planetarium dome."

McCain didn't lie.

Did you read your own link?

Obama did try to get an earmark for $3 million for a projector for the planitarium.

The fact that yet again Obama failed does not change the fact that he tried to get that earmark.

 

[NickCole]

^ So much for McCain supporting science!
I know people from my high school graduating class who went into science careers, inspired by a visit to our local planetarium -- and of course its "overhead projector".

I think maybe I'll write a letter to the editor here, titled "McCain Opposes Science Education".

McCain's point is that earmarks are the wrong way to do business with our Federal taxpayer money.

If Obama wanted public funds for that projector, according to McCain's point, he should have been forthright about it and not try to slip it into some unrelated spending legislation. Let the people of Illinois or the American people know what you want money for and give us the chance to vote you back in or out of office when we approve or disapprove. The secret nature of earmark spending, and it getting totally out of hand, is what's at issue.

And McCain's further point is that Obama stopped asking for earmarks when he decided to run for President and then started talking about ending earmark spending. It's another example of Obama's deceitfulness.

 

[fireside]

McCain didn't lie.

Did you read your own link?

Obama did try to get an earmark for $3 million for a projector for the planitarium.

The fact that yet again Obama failed does not change the fact that he tried to get that earmark.

McCain has repeatedly taken his presidential rival (and Senate colleague) Barack Obama to task for seeking the $3 million earmark for Chicago's Adler Planetarium. The 40-year-old projector currently being used by the world-class planetarium is failing, and it's so obsolete that spare parts aren't available anymore. Obama and other members of the Illinois congressional delegation sought federal funds for a replacement.

I'm unsure wherein the problem lies with federally funding a valuable asset of a planetarium's operations. I'm unsure why the government shouldn't want adults and children to understand the cosmos outside their planet more accurately.


EDIT: That's almost as bad as complaining about Mary Landrieu wanting money to fortify the levees surrounding my city and to rebuild the wetlands just south of it.

 

[NickCole]

I'm unsure wherein the problem lies with federally funding a valuable asset of a planetarium's operations. I'm unsure why the government shouldn't want adults and children to understand the cosmos outside their planet more accurately.

The issue is earmark spending.

EDIT: That's almost as bad as complaining about Mary Landrieu wanting money to fortify the levees surrounding my city and to rebuild the wetlands just south of it.

That wasn't earmark spending, it was straightforward legislation.

Non-earmark spending is a spending bill for levee fortification funding; earmark spending would have been, say, slipping into that bill an extra million to repave streets near the levee. That isn't to say the streets shouldn't be paved, but that's a separate issue that should be considered on its own merits.