Official Political (Republican/Democrat) Debate Thread

[BigRog]

Man, So i go to AOL.com this morning to find about that Palins 17 yr old daughter is pregnant. Five months along as well. And I am reading all the comments and many of which echo my feelings.

How the hell can this woman be potentially a step away from the presidency and she is not handling things at home. She would rather go out campaigning with her ill son(down syndrome) and pregnant teenager at home. At least I read that a statement was made that the girl would marry the baby's father.

I am just waiting to see what the dems and media do with this. Also its funny how the Reps who were leaving comments are trying to defend the family, by saying "what american family is perfect" and this and that. To quote a comment i read:

"We all know good and well that if this was Obama or Biden with a teenage daughter that the Reps would love it and you guys would be bashing way more than you already do. When there is a lil something to go against an unknown, inexperienced, VP nominee you guys run to the rescue. If it was a democrat though, the repubs may finally have something to go on for once."

And from my point of view, most message boards or political forums I frequent seem to have way more Obama-haters, than McCain naysayers or haters.

There goes the mother of a family angle. Guess McCain can't play that angle now.

[Kayxero]

He cant use the no exp angle anymore either too. So lets see what happens. I personally think he sold out just to grab Hillary voters. I think if Obama went with Clinton, Palin would still be an unknown.

[el_jefe061]

Indifferent? You mean like Barrack's record of voting 'present' a majority of the time? He either votes that he showed up but has no opinion or in lock-step with the disliked Congressional majority.

He's not change. He's just all the same in a more photogenic package.

I like how I put up practically a novel and I get two sentences back. Bravo.

IMO the country was run well until the democrats got elected to congress 2 years ago. Unemployment hit all time low, market hit all time high, etc. Then 2 years ago things started declining.

The economy runs in cycles. If any damage today has been done, it's from the quacks like Alan Greenspan and 6 years of a Republican congress. Your information is incorrect, as the market did not hit an alltime high or unemployment an all time low.

See above it really isn't a failed administration. Until 2 years ago it was one of the better administrations in modern times. Almost comparable to the Reagan years.

This is just beyond anything remotely correct. Not only is the Bush Administration already regarded as one of the worst administrations since the 30's, calling it one of the best is ridiculous.

Please, next time back up anything you say, so you sound less wrong.

[Sean O]

anyway:

Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown reports: At a press avail in Monroe, Mich., Barack Obama on Palin: "Back off these kinds of stories."

"I have said before and I will repeat again: People's families are off limits," Obama said. "And people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. So I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18 and how a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn’t be a topic of our politics."

On charges that his campaign has stoked the story via liberal blogs:

"I am offended by that statement. There is no evidence at all that any of this involved us," he said. "Our people were not involved in any way in this, and they will not be. And if I thought there was somebody in my campaign who was involved in something like that, they would be fired."

[tywiggins]

Man, So i go to AOL.com this morning to find about that Palins 17 yr old daughter is pregnant. Five months along as well. And I am reading all the comments and many of which echo my feelings.

How the hell can this woman be potentially a step away from the presidency and she is not handling things at home. She would rather go out campaigning with her ill son(down syndrome) and pregnant teenager at home. At least I read that a statement was made that the girl would marry the baby's father.

I am just waiting to see what the dems and media do with this. Also its funny how the Reps who were leaving comments are trying to defend the family, by saying "what american family is perfect" and this and that. To quote a comment i read:

"We all know good and well that if this was Obama or Biden with a teenage daughter that the Reps would love it and you guys would be bashing way more than you already do. When there is a lil something to go against an unknown, inexperienced, VP nominee you guys run to the rescue. If it was a democrat though, the repubs may finally have something to go on for once."

And from my point of view, most message boards or political forums I frequent seem to have way more Obama-haters, than McCain naysayers or haters.

I just read a story a day or two ago that Palin's down's syndrome son is actually Palin's teenage daughter's son.

I don't know if it's true or not. But it was interesting.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/3.../137/486/580223

[Sean O]

I just read a story a day or two ago that Palin's down's syndrome son is actually Palin's teenage daughter's son.

I don't know if it's true or not. But it was interesting.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/3.../137/486/580223

No, it's probably not true for a number of different reasons, but there are a bunch of questions:

1). She left immediately from a speech in Texas because her water broke. Instead of going to a hospital, she took an 8 HOUR flight to Alaska, since Alaska Air is one of the very few that doesn't require a doctor's note for pregnant women.

2). Instead of going directly to a hospital from the airport, she went 45 minutes away to a rural hospital, which has no record of the child being born.

3). She maintained her strict workout regimen during the pregnancy.

I don't care how it relates to her ability to lead or govern (since I don't think she has that ability anyway), but I'm pretty sure Palin was trying to abort the child by any other means. No mother in their right mind, or doctor, would authorize an 8 hour flight. While she says she'd never abort, taking a long flight, then taking a long time to some random hospital, and working out as hard as she did could cause many complications.

There's something weird here. I just hope people don't forget The Bridge to Nowhere, the trooper scandal, the sexual harrasser she hand-picked to replace the commissioner she wrongly fired, her relations with Ted Stevens, or the AIP.

[meteamo]

The fact that her daughter is having a kid at the young age doesn't have anything to do with the campaign. If you listened to Obama, this is off limits as it correctly should be. He later went on to say this his mother was 18 years old and that whatever happens with their kids should be off limits and doesn't have anything to do with the issues. Besides, I think if anything this would help the conservative base that believe strongly in pro-life. All Palin does is to strengthen the republican base that McCain had a hard time to get for a while. And meanwhile, were is the father in all of this? My guess is that he's staying home with the kids while the mother is campaigning. It's unfair to say that "How the hell can this woman be potentially a step away from the presidency and she is not handling things at home. She would rather go out campaigning with her ill son(down syndrome) and pregnant teenager at home." If a guy was campaigning while his daughter was pregnant and a kid with down syndrome at home, nobody would be saying anything.

Link about Obama / off-limit: link (BTW .. there's a typo in this article)

And to say that he picked her just to appeal to the Hillary supporters is just not true. There is an idiotic group that supports Hillary and is trying to get women to support McCain. But, I think that group would be pro-McCain no matter who who picked for the Veep simply because they are anti-Obama since he beat their candidate. This is purely stupid they are doing this. Once they realize what she stands for ... things that Dems don't agree with, they'll support Obama. You have to look at the issues and the women and men that would have voted for Hillary would never ever vote for someone like Palin simply because of the issues. The goal at picking the Veep candidate is to pick someone that is complimentary to you or that can do something that you either you can't do or are better at. For example, Obama picked Biden because of his Foreign Policy Experience. And likewise, McCain picked Palin for her more conservative values. An example of this is that she believes in Pro-Life even in cases of rape or incest. Two prime examples of her pro-life is her keeping her baby even though she knew her baby had down syndrome and her accepting her own daughter to have the baby. This appeals to prime conservatives and may help her with that.

* edit *

The bridge to nowhere .... she claims that she stopped it and she prevented them from getting the permits they needed to work on it. If anything, she prevented it. And I pretty much think that it's the senators and others that try get things for the individual state and not the governor.

[BigRog]

Yeah the points made in that article are odd. Good find ty.

[Sean O]

* edit *

The bridge to nowhere .... she claims that she stopped it and she prevented them from getting the permits they needed to work on it. If anything, she prevented it. And I pretty much think that it's the senators and others that try get things for the individual state and not the governor.

"she was for it before she was against it." She gave a speech at the supposed site, and spent millions of taxpayer dollars on a beefed up road leading to the bridge to nowhere. Then, she abruptly changed her mind when the whole Stevens thing blew up.

[meteamo]

"she was for it before she was against it." She gave a speech at the supposed site, and spent millions of taxpayer dollars on a beefed up road leading to the bridge to nowhere. Then, she abruptly changed her mind when the whole Stevens thing blew up.

Oh, okay. Thanks.

When I was at work talking politics (which is one of the three things you shouldn't do at work), the news about Palin being the Veep broke. They had no idea who she was and I tried my best to explain my little knowledge of her. The first question they asked was "is she better looking than Hillary?" I just laughed. We were having an interesting conversation and this is what they came up with.

[Kayxero]

Even if the dad is home, I think it is a mothers job to instill the right values into a daughter. Id flip if I had a daughter getting pregnant like that. Probably kill the boy too. But what dad wouldnt =P

[tywiggins]

No, it's probably not true for a number of different reasons, but there are a bunch of questions:

1). She left immediately from a speech in Texas because her water broke. Instead of going to a hospital, she took an 8 HOUR flight to Alaska, since Alaska Air is one of the very few that doesn't require a doctor's note for pregnant women.

2). Instead of going directly to a hospital from the airport, she went 45 minutes away to a rural hospital, which has no record of the child being born.

3). She maintained her strict workout regimen during the pregnancy.

I don't care how it relates to her ability to lead or govern (since I don't think she has that ability anyway), but I'm pretty sure Palin was trying to abort the child by any other means. No mother in their right mind, or doctor, would authorize an 8 hour flight. While she says she'd never abort, taking a long flight, then taking a long time to some random hospital, and working out as hard as she did could cause many complications.

There's something weird here. I just hope people don't forget The Bridge to Nowhere, the trooper scandal, the sexual harrasser she hand-picked to replace the commissioner she wrongly fired, her relations with Ted Stevens, or the AIP.

In my opinion, the daughter having the baby is much more believable than Palin trying to abort the child by other means.

According to the story, Palin's daughter missed 5 to 8 months of school with "mono", while Palin missed only a few days of work.

Palin going back to Alaska to be there for her grandson's birth makes more sense to me than Palin taking a long flight back to Alaska to deliver her baby after her water broke.

I'm much more inclined to believe that Palin lied about the whole thing.

[meteamo]

Even if the dad is home, I think it is a mothers job to instill the right values into a daughter. Id flip if I had a daughter getting pregnant like that. Probably kill the boy too. But what dad wouldnt =P

If you killed the boy, then nobody wins because you'd be in jail. But, then again, I probably would too.

It's not necessarily the mother's job to instill the right values into a daughter. It's up to the parents. It may have been what was thought in the 1950's but shouldn't be thought of now. My parents got divorced when I was 3 years old and my sister and I went with our father. This was back in the late 70's. He did a great job at raising me and my sister. He instilled good values into both of us. And my mother didn't have anything to do with it. Everything should be 50/50 ... a compromise. It's the job of all of the parents involved .. no matter who they are to raise the kids as best as they can and to instill the 'right' values ... whether it be the mom or dad.

[piratesmvp04]

Outing an existing CIA agent is a treasonous offense. This isn't debatable. You put a CIA agent in direct harm, which is treason.

That still hasn't been proven that Cheney leaked that info. Plume tried to file suit and was turned down. We have this thing in our great nation called "innocent until proven guilty." Until Cheney has been proven that he did this, we can't hold it against him. Rev. Wright, on the other hand, has been proven to say anti-american things.

I believe god would **** America. I **** America. We torture people without trial or reason, and have destroyed the constitution. I am not an American, I am a Bostonian, because we take care of our people here.

I'm very sorry you feel that way about the US. But where did you hear we torture people without trial or reason? Please don't tell me you're talking about water-boarding.

And about God d***ing America? I am a Christian, and I do not believe that God will d*** America just yet.

Ayers was a terrorist who has said that he wishes he could have done more terroristic things back then.

Terroristic?

Obama had a single meeting at his house, because his wife is a respected professor at Northwestern University. This was nothing Obama did, because the Republicans can't find anything that Obama actually did that was wrong.

What about speaking with Ayers standing behind him on the podium? What about him asking Ayers for advice before entering primary? And yes, we can't find anything wrong with Obama, but we can't find anything right either. So, the best way is to look at the people he hangs out with. Friends usually define yourself, and that's what makes us so concerned about Obama.

What about abusing their position for monetary gain like with Charles Keating? What about selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein and helping Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan?

You're correct that McCain received $1 million from Keating in the 1980s for his campaign. I guess we're going to forget about the fact the guy has surely matured over the past 20 years. All the connections we've accused Obama about are recent happenings. Not things from 20 years ago.

And yet again, you have no ability or interest in arguing policy, because McCain doesn't stand for anything. So you have to keep passing these pathetic excuses trying to make a standing US senator seem Unamerican.

Argue policy, with facts. Nothing you have said so far has been accurate according to unbiased sources like factcheck.org.

I am all for arguing policy. But, I'm just going with the flow of the debate. If you want to start talking policy, bring something up and I'll discuss it. And my "excuses" are not pathetic. They are legitimate reasons to be concerned about. People talk about Obama having a drug problem how he attended a Muslin school when he was young. But I don't bring that up because the guy has gotten over that and he's matured since then, so I can't hold it against him. But I can talk about the things that have happened in recent years, and I think you are the one trying to ignore the argument.

[piratesmvp04]

Sorry about the double-post, but I'm moving the policy discussion from the Obama thread over to here so that we keep everything in the correct place.

-------

1). the violence decreased because we started paying both sides not to fight.

2). Troop fatalities increased for the first few months, until the money solution took hold.

3). The Sunni Awakening is all PR.

4). The point of the surge, as stated by McCain and Bush, was to allow for Sunni and Shia to come to a political agreement. Instead, elections in October are still in the air because radical, Anti-American elements are likely to take spots. This includes those loyal to Muqtada Al-Sad'r.

5). If we were winning, why did Nouri Al-Maliki have to beg Al Sad'r for the continuation of the cease-fire a few months ago?

6). While Americans were dying, why did the Iraqi government go on a 3 month long summer recess instead of hammering out a bipartisan solution?

We are not paying both sides to "stop fighting". According the the LA Times, Bush payed 70,000 insurgents $300/month to act as a police force in certain regions. There was concern that this would lead to a rival army, and it's why Iraq opposed it. But, if you go by what BigRog said, all American news is corrupt to some degree, so perhaps that's not true? But even if it is, that can't be the only reason why we're having success over there. If it was, Obama wouldn't have settled down in his attacks on the war in Iraq. The fact that Obama is rarely attacking the Iraq war is because he knows we're winning and there's not much to argue against it right now.

You're serious dude? Bush said Iraq had WMDs, I guess they had WMDs.

That's different. Bush said Iraq had wmds based on intelligence reports. Petraus says we're winning the war in Iraq BASED ON WHAT HE'S SEEN WITH HIS OWN EYES! It's two completely different scenarios; you can't compare them.

Basic logic? The fact that the goals of the surge weren't accomplished? The fact that the surge cost us hundreds of billions of dollars for no result, not so great.

If the surge didn't work, as you say, I guess the Democrats are weak because they haven't attacked it very much in the past few months. Or, is it because they know we're winning?

And then the deregulation and speculation began. Because the Bush administration did nothing to protect the refineries in the Gulf, gas rose $1.25 a gallon during Katrina and speculation took over.

What does Bush have to do to protect the refineries? Why do we always blame government for problems like this? The government has no say in how the free market for oil plays out. Bush has been pushing for drilling for the past 8 years, but the Congress has not gotten it passed. And don't try to tell me that the Republican congress could have gotten it passed. They did, but the Senate turned it down because the Republicans couldn't get enough votes on it. So, here we are now with 3.60/gallon gas.

While the Bush administration has done nothing to find alternate fuel sources.

We've been researching alternative fuels for a while. In fact, we are using corn for ethanol right now, and that's why the price of corn is so high. The fact is that the alternatives are not as good as oil yet. Also, the short-sighted public wasn't so concerned about alternative fuel sources because prices on everything were low enough. Any big spending on alternative fuels would have made the public mad because they would be too short-sighted to see the future need.

And since everything depends on that oil price, everything else goes up too. We need to drill our own oil and increase the supply so that the price will go down.

That's insane. If I repeatedly slam my head into a wall, putting a bandage on won't solve the problem, I need to stop slamming my head.

What does this have to do with slamming your head against the wall? Don't you know your economics? The cost of everything is so high right now because oil is high. We use oil for everything in our lives today. The supply right now is low because we import most of our oil from the Saudis, and they are purposely not drilling enough right now. So, by the law of supply and demand, the cost goes up because the supply is low and the demand is high. If we drill more oil and put more oil on the market, the supply will go up to meet hte demand, and the price will go down.

4. People are losing their homes for the same reason the economy is going down. The only way we will fix this is by increasing oil supply by drilling.

HAHAHAHAHA. This is literally the most ludicrous thing I've heard in months. People are losing their homes because of Republican deregulation, including the man behind McCain's economic policy. It used to be that banks couldn't loan money to any sub-prime people, but in order to extract more money, they were allowed to offer ARMs to those who never would've been able to afford it in the first place.

Then, because they're corporations, they doubled the rate without any warning (or oversight), forcing people out of their homes. This has NOTHING to do with oil.

I guess you didn't understand what I was trying to say. People are losing their homes because the price on everything is going up. So, it's making it that much harder to manage a budget. If oil was cheaper, everything would be cheaper, and people wouldn't have to spend so much, thus making it easier to pay the bills.

You want to eliminate taxes on corporations! holy god, are you serious? Exxon has billion dollar profits and gets billions in tax breaks, that is insane.

There's where you're dead wrong. Exxon's profit is only in the single digits right now. That's much less profit than a company like Microsoft which makes profits in the 30%s. If we implement the FairTax, we will eliminate taxes on corporations, which will make it cheaper to produce products. These taxes will be made up with the FairTax, a 30% tax that will be charged to every piece of merchandise. This will eliminate the need for the IRS, thus leading to smaller government, which means we don't have to pay as many salaries.

5. We are no closer to alternative fuels than we were 8 years ago because 8 years ago, there was no need to get alternative fuels.

You mean when scientists were saying that global warming was accelerating and we were facing a massive fuel shortage in the future? What about the 70s with the gas shortages then because of Middle Eastern interference.

Oh, about the 70s. At that time, people were concerned with something called global cooling. There was concern that Europe was going to have an Ice Age. But it never happened. What does that tell you about the global warming myth?

[BigRog]

Is it me or do you argue every valid point Sean makes?

[Sean O]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...rs-of-frin.html

ABC news reports that Palin belonged to a radical secessionist party called the AIP, with the motto "Alaska First- Alaska Always." They seek the completely repatriation of land to Alaskans, from the US government. She attended their convention in 1996 before becoming a Republican.

[meteamo]

Is it me or do you argue every valid point Sean makes?

LOL

Forget about McCain and Obama having debates, why not Sean and piratesmvp04. If there's a way to put the debate on YouTube then that would be something. They would just need to pick their Veep choices. And BigRog can be the moderator.

BTW ... Palin was the first Alaskan governor that was born after Alaska became part of the US.

[Sean O]

That still hasn't been proven that Cheney leaked that info. Plume tried to file suit and was turned down. We have this thing in our great nation called "innocent until proven guilty." Until Cheney has been proven that he did this, we can't hold it against him. Rev. Wright, on the other hand, has been proven to say anti-american things.

And you'd be insane to compare evidence pointing to treason and someone saying something offensive. Has Obama said anything offensive? The priest at my old catholic church says things I find hateful and idiotic from the bible, but it doesn't mean I agree with them. I had a teacher who was a holocaust revisionist, but I don't agree with that.

And why aren't you mentioned McCain's "spiritual advisors", Hagee and Parsley? Is he anti-American because he actively sought their endorsement?

I'm very sorry you feel that way about the US. But where did you hear we torture people without trial or reason? Please don't tell me you're talking about water-boarding.

And about God d***ing America? I am a Christian, and I do not believe that God will d*** America just yet.

I believe that any God would see our treatment of citizens and foreigners alike and be truly displeased.

Waterboarding is psychological torture by any human means, and only monsters think otherwise. We also deprive people of sleep, make them stand for hours on end, and many other violations of the Geneva Convention. On top of that, there are prisoners from 2002 that have never received a trial or were told their crimes.

What about speaking with Ayers standing behind him on the podium? What about him asking Ayers for advice before entering primary? And yes, we can't find anything wrong with Obama, but we can't find anything right either. So, the best way is to look at the people he hangs out with. Friends usually define yourself, and that's what makes us so concerned about Obama.

You mean, while Obama was a union organizer, McCain was a corrupt politician cheating on his crippled ex wife? As usual, you are unable to discuss policy, so you're making Obama out to be subhuman. I dislike McCain's policies and past actions, but I don't think he hates America. And I believe an acting senator doesn't deserve these idiotic slanders.

You're correct that McCain received $1 million from Keating in the 1980s for his campaign. I guess we're going to forget about the fact the guy has surely matured over the past 20 years. All the connections we've accused Obama about are recent happenings. Not things from 20 years ago.

Hah! So it's ok to be a criminal in the past. He's matured since 20 years ago? he was in his 50s! If he's not mature enough by then, he'll never be mature enough. What about the screaming matches and threats of physical violence towards other senators, recently?

I am all for arguing policy. But, I'm just going with the flow of the debate. If you want to start talking policy, bring something up and I'll discuss it.

Why doesn't McCain mention AIDS on his website, while Obama has a 7 page PDF dedicated to the subject?

Why doesn't McCain offer any specifics about his plans, while Obama has money allocated to the penny?

Why doesn't McCain support PAYGO?

What are McCain's intentions with Iran? Does he realize an attack on Iran could destroy our country?

What is his Iraq exit strategy?

If McCain by his own admission doesn't know much about the economy, what are his plans to fix the current mess?

How will McCain curtail pork barrel spending since he doesn't list specifics on his website?

How will he address the energy crisis, since he doesn't list specifics on his website?

How can McCain justify abrogating the Geneva Convention by allowing torture?

How will McCain fix our relationship with the EU?

How will McCain handle our economic relations to China?

How will McCain deal with predatory banks / lenders / credit card companies?

How will McCain's health care plan address pre-existing conditions and other questionable reasons to deny claims?

What are the branching options for leaving Iraq?

What will he do to curtail spending in order to balance the budget?

None of these are answered on McCain's website. Here's a good example:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...2989bdc948c.htm that's McCain's ethics page. Nowhere does he give specifics on how he'll accomplish anything.

Meanwhile, on Obama's page (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/), he has a bulleted list of every specific action he'll take. If that's not enough for you, he then links to a 7 page PDF document, containing passages like the following:

(3) REMOVE THE USE OF PUBLIC OFFICE FOR PARTISAN ADVANTAGE: Public office

should not be used to advance political interests. Too often federal workers dismiss the

law that governs political activity, both because of political incentives not to use it and

because of inadequate enforcement mechanisms. As president, Barack Obama will issue

an Executive Order banning the use of public office to further partisan advantage in

political elections. Obama’s Executive Order will create an additional and effective

enforcement mechanism of the Hatch Act’s prohibitions on ideological litmus tests for

non-political hires and other political appointee abuses. Under the enforcement

procedure, any non-political civil servant who believes a Hatch Act violation has

occurred may submit a written complaint with the Inspector General of the agency

involved. Within 60 days of receipt of the complaint, the Inspector General will be

required to investigate and issue a written report detailing the scope of the investigation

and findings indicating whether the complaint has merit. When the agency head’s

decision is challenged, the report shall be made to the President. A finding by the

Inspector General that activity was improperly based upon political considerations shall

be a basis for discipline, up to and including termination.

Obama has a plan for everything. McCain might be capable of leading, but there is no plan in place to accomplish his goals. He doesn't even delineate what the goals are, in anything but the vaguest of ways.

[tywiggins]

Oh, about the 70s. At that time, people were concerned with something called global cooling. There was concern that Europe was going to have an Ice Age. But it never happened. What does that tell you about the global warming myth?

The 70's global cooling concern did not come from mainstream science.

There is a "widespread scientific consensus" about climate change.

Read this:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222

[piratesmvp04]

And you'd be insane to compare evidence pointing to treason and someone saying something offensive. Has Obama said anything offensive? The priest at my old catholic church says things I find hateful and idiotic from the bible, but it doesn't mean I agree with them. I had a teacher who was a holocaust revisionist, but I don't agree with that.

And why aren't you mentioned McCain's "spiritual advisors", Hagee and Parsley? Is he anti-American because he actively sought their endorsement?

Is McCain anti-American because he sought the endorsement of Hagee and Parsley? Well, the strength of your argument would depend on how close he is to both of those guys. From what I've heard, he's not as close to them as Obama was to Wright, Flager, and Ayers.

I believe that any God would see our treatment of citizens and foreigners alike and be truly displeased.

Waterboarding is psychological torture by any human means, and only monsters think otherwise. We also deprive people of sleep, make them stand for hours on end, and many other violations of the Geneva Convention. On top of that, there are prisoners from 2002 that have never received a trial or were told their crimes.

Oh, without a doubt he's displeased, but I don't believe it's in His plan to d*** America just yet.

What about speaking with Ayers standing behind him on the podium? What about him asking Ayers for advice before entering primary? And yes, we can't find anything wrong with Obama, but we can't find anything right either. So, the best way is to look at the people he hangs out with. Friends usually define yourself, and that's what makes us so concerned about Obama.

You mean, while Obama was a union organizer, McCain was a corrupt politician cheating on his crippled ex wife? As usual, you are unable to discuss policy, so you're making Obama out to be subhuman. I dislike McCain's policies and past actions, but I don't think he hates America. And I believe an acting senator doesn't deserve these idiotic slanders.

Now, you're the one ignoring facts. You didn't quite answer the question about giving a speech with Ayers on the podium. Even if Obama shares no beliefs with Ayers, that wasn't smart at all to do that. And McCain left his wife because he was a changed man psychologically as a result of his imprisonment during the war. His wife said that the break-up resulted from McCain wanted to be a young guy again, and refusing to accept that time had changed. I should point out that McCain is still on good terms with his ex-. Most people aren't when they divorce.

Hah! So it's ok to be a criminal in the past. He's matured since 20 years ago? he was in his 50s! If he's not mature enough by then, he'll never be mature enough. What about the screaming matches and threats of physical violence towards other senators, recently?

Who said accepting money from Keating was a criminal offense? I'd like to see the law on that. And McCain may be a mature man, but he wasn't mature as a politician. He definitely has matured as a politician over the past 20 years.

Why doesn't McCain mention AIDS on his website, while Obama has a 7 page PDF dedicated to the subject?

Because he's more concerned about making the United States better than creating a global village like Obama wants to do.

Why doesn't McCain offer any specifics about his plans, while Obama has money allocated to the penny?

McCain does have specifics. If you look at his site, you'll see.

Why doesn't McCain support PAYGO?

I honestly know very little about PAYGO. History shows that it is a good policy; I don't know why the Republicans don't support it.

What are McCain's intentions with Iran? Does he realize an attack on Iran could destroy our country?

I don't know what he plans to do with Iran. I guess that'd be a discrepancy on his site. But I do know that he won't sit down with Iran without preconditions, which Obama wants to do. We must be ready for war with Iran if it is necessary. To sit back and just talk about it without being firm would be to make the same mistakes that led to World War II.

What is his Iraq exit strategy?

Here's what he says: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues...c7ea83f11d8.htm. In short, he believes we must stay there until Iraq can fend for itself. To put a timetable on that would be to artificially micromanage the war. We can't do that. We must be patient if we are going to win in Iraq.

If McCain by his own admission doesn't know much about the economy, what are his plans to fix the current mess?

Here's what's from his website: http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/. He basically supports the basic conservative economic plans. Lower taxes for companies, and things like that. I'll spare you all the details of Republican economics since you probably already know them.

How will he address the energy crisis, since he doesn't list specifics on his website?

John McCain supports drilling off the coast, and he's proposed offering a money reward to the first person to develop a cheap car that runs on alternative fuels.

I have to admit you got me on the rest of the questions. Quite frankly, I don't know those details about John McCain, just the basics. I was a Huckabee guy, so the only reason I'm voting McCain is because he's better than Obama. I support the basic core McCain stands for: Conservative economics, finishing the war in Iraq, drilling for more oil, investing in alternative fuels, and his pro-life stance (except the stem cell research part). Those are all I need to pick the right candidate for myself.

I can answer questions about my own personal political beliefs, but I honestly can't break down every single measly detail about John McCain.

[el_jefe061]

Who said accepting money from Keating was a criminal offense? I'd like to see the law on that. And McCain may be a mature man, but he wasn't mature as a politician. He definitely has matured as a politician over the past 20 years.

Which includes flip-flopping, putting someone who made baseless claims against your reputation to run your campaign staff, and letting Joe Lieberman whisper things you don't know about in your ear.

Also included are making up songs about war "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran", joking about a gorilla raping a woman, and never voting on any issue that means anything.

[piratesmvp04]

Which includes flip-flopping, putting someone who made baseless claims against your reputation to run your campaign staff, and letting Joe Lieberman whisper things you don't know about in your ear.

Also included are making up songs about war "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran", joking about a gorilla raping a woman, and never voting on any issue that means anything.

But that still is not a criminal offense. We're not talking about what was smart for him to do or what was right. We're talking about criminal offenses here. Show me the law that says accepting money from a person like Keating is a criminal offense.

EDIT: Oh, and about McCain's voting record. You want to point to him, but how about Obama? How about all those times he voted 'Present?' He obviously doesn't know where he stands on a lot of issues...or he's just not tough enough perhaps?

[BigRog]

I don't get why republicans keep falling back on the voting present thing

[piratesmvp04]

I don't get why republicans keep falling back on the voting present thing

Because it could be a sign of either uncertainty or lack of confidence to risk negative press by voting a certain way.