Official Political (Republican/Democrat) Debate Thread

[Sean O]

For years the 9/11 terrorists were in flight school in our own country. Why was this not found out between 96 and 2000? Look at what has been thwarted since. Other countries continue to get bombed (UK, Spain, etc..) while there has not been one significant event in the US since 2001. Coincidence? Not at all. We all live in a safer country today because of the action taken these past 7 years. Anyone who says it's been a waste is stabbing every single military personnel in the back.

PPOR. The 9/11 commission said that the earliest flight training was in March of 2000. And, fantastic way to limit the potential for disagreement by saying that anyone who responds is "stabbing people in the back." That's the kind of crap that has ruined intelligent discourse in this nation. Especially since 1). you can't prove a negative, 2). Al Qaeda and radical Islamists have plenty of opportunities to kill Americans in the middle east now, and 3). these actions could have occurred without the tremendous infringement upon American civil liberties and the Geneva Convention.

On a related note, Sarah Palin doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU

That's 2nd week IR. And McCain, and half the country, think she's able to lead the free world.

[Kayxero]

Just wow. Not to mention how scripted and un-natural those answers sound. I need to see this whole interview. Its going to be interesting to say the least.

[Kayxero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ALsjhDDdaA Full interview, and the link to part 2 should be on the page

Jeez Mrs palin.

[meteamo]

yeah, smart... allow the US to get terrorized and essentially bombed by our own planes and sit on our hands and do nothing... what an effin' brilliant plan that would have been. Diplomacy ends when we are attacked, which we were.

N Korea and Iran have proved they aren't to be trusted by alienating and not cooperating with the UN. America is targets of both of these countries. If the UN continues to push these BS deadlines back each time, then we have to take measures to ensure we aren't attacked. One country, Iraq, is no longer a threat because of our actions.

If we had diplomatic relations with these countries, we would have had people on the ground, we would have gathered intelligence "as we do in every country we have consulates in" and we may have seen it coming unlike Bush's Ostrich policy of just sticking your head in the ground and not seeing it coming. That type of thinking is the reason our government is the first there AFTER AFTER AFTER every disaster we have.

For years the 9/11 terrorists were in flight school in our own country. Why was this not found out between 96 and 2000? Look at what has been thwarted since. Other countries continue to get bombed (UK, Spain, etc..) while there has not been one significant event in the US since 2001. Coincidence? Not at all. We all live in a safer country today because of the action taken these past 7 years. Anyone who says it's been a waste is stabbing every single military personnel in the back.

The Israelis had given our country warnings that activities among these terrorist groups over there had increased vastly and if Bush didn't have his head in the ground (Ostrich), he may have seen it coming instead of being the first one there AFTER AFTER AFTER things happen.

Bush was the first one there AFTER Katrina ... Bush was the first one there AFTER the mortgage collapse ... Bush was the first one there AFTER gas went to $4.00 per gallon ... Bush is the first one there AFTER the banks are collapsing ... and Bush is the first to tell you that there is no inflation ... if you disregard energy and food cost increases.

[Kayxero]

Quote from youtube comment regarding the interview

"Re: that part of Gov. Palin's answer that she has foreign policy credentials when she said, - "You can actually see Russia from an island in Alaska'".

I can see the moon from my backyard. ...Doesn't make me an astronaut."

Lmao

Btw, Nato or No Nato. I def do not think it is a wise idea to even think of a possible war with Russia over Georgia. Something she deems as Russia being "unprovoked " by Georgia. mmmhmmm And I love how she would answered the Pakistan question =/

Also. The edits in the interview seem so weird. Blah

[Fatalah]

I love how people think we are "winning" the war.

The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7610405.stm

The story just broke on the BBC. Kind of big news, probably will hit the mainstream media tomorrow.

[Sean O]

Like most republicans, you don't have a clue.

This sort of talk will not be tolerated, under any circumstances, regardless of your outlook.

[Fatalah]

Here! Now, how many MVPmod folks are making over $250,000? If you ARE, then McCain is the guy for you.

[piratesmvp04]

Here! Now, how many MVPmod folks are making over $250,000? If you ARE, then McCain is the guy for you.

You know, the funny thing is that the liberals have been attacking McCain for owning 12 houses or something. The interesting thing is that John McCain is not really the owner of those. His wife is the owner. And in fact, he will get very little of her fortune if she ever dies; it goes to her children. John McCain is not rich because he makes a lot of money; he's rich because of his wife. The chart you presented says, "Family Income." So, if I'm not mistaken, that means that it includes all income from both husband and wife. So, John McCain isn't really as rich as he seems to be; he just feeds off of his wife's salary. (I think it was the New York Times reported this, but I could be wrong. I don't have time to search for the article, but if anyone wants to, go ahead!)

[Sean O]

The problem with HouseGate is that he doesn't even know how many houses his immediately family owns. He doesn't know how to use a computer, or send e-mail, he hasn't defined what he considers "middle class," etc. McCain is totally disconnected to both his constituents and the greater citizenry.

Also, here's a shining beacon of humanity (not saying it's indicative of anything, before anyone freaks):

[piratesmvp04]

The problem with HouseGate is that he doesn't even know how many houses his immediately family owns. He doesn't know how to use a computer, or send e-mail, he hasn't defined what he considers "middle class," etc. McCain is totally disconnected to both his constituents and the greater citizenry.

Also, here's a shining beacon of humanity (not saying it's indicative of anything, before anyone freaks):

Oh, I agree with you on all those issues; that's why I didn't support McCain in the first place. I was a Huckabee guy, but he's gone obviously. So, I support the lesser of two evils. And the 3 main things that are important to me are lower taxes, drilling for oil, and winning the war on terror and in Iraq. McCain supports all these issues, so despite the fact that he's computer illiterate or could die while in office, I still support him because he supports these issues.

And about the Muslim thing, there are documents and testimony from Obama's old school friends that he did attend a Muslim school and he did recite the Koran. What Obama should have done with this case was come out and say, "When I was younger and had no choice but to listen to my parents, I did believe in Islam. But now that I am older and wiser adn can think for myself, I know that Islam is false." That would have spared him all the controversy about where his faith lies. But instead, Obama, whether at the advice of his campaign manager or not, chooses to hide the issue and pretend it never happened. That's why you have this controversy. In my opinion, Obama should fire his campaign manager and get someone new because he quite frankly should be way ahead in the polls right now, as the Dems usually are at this time in the elections.

[Kayxero]

What are the republicans take on the Palin interview. I think many of us have seen it by now, and I have already posted what i thought.

[Hory]

And about the Muslim thing, there are documents and testimony from Obama's old school friends that he did attend a Muslim school and he did recite the Koran. What Obama should have done with this case was come out and say, "When I was younger and had no choice but to listen to my parents, I did believe in Islam. But now that I am older and wiser and can think for myself, I know that Islam is false."

So at 9 years old, Obama was fluent enough in Arabic to recite the Koran? That's pretty impressive, especially with all the time he had spent helping William Ayers and the Weather Underground in the 60s.

[Sean O]

Oh, I agree with you on all those issues; that's why I didn't support McCain in the first place. I was a Huckabee guy, but he's gone obviously. So, I support the lesser of two evils. And the 3 main things that are important to me are lower taxes, drilling for oil, and winning the war on terror and in Iraq. McCain supports all these issues, so despite the fact that he's computer illiterate or could die while in office, I still support him because he supports these issues.

1). You do know that Obama's tax plan will actually lower taxes for the great majority of people, right? Unless you do make over 250k. Frankly, I'm against both of their tax cuts until we balance the budget, since Bush's administration has increased the national debt by 3.1 trillion.

2). Drilling is such a stupid nonissue. At the very least, it will be 7 years before a single drop of oil from what we used to call ANWR will hit a gas tank, and it's more likely 10-15 years. In the meantime, McCain has no plan whatsoever for alternate fuels, which are our only true hope to loose ourselves from foreign oil.

3). You can't win what's already lost. If Bush is ready to cut and run, what will it take McCain to ever leave? Again, he refuses to even give a hypothetical. And the Bush administration's illegal incursion into Iraq has been the single greatest boon to Al Qaeda since it was Maktab al-Khadamat fighting the Soviets. I don't really know if I can trust these people to handle the War on Terror.

And about the Muslim thing, there are documents and testimony from Obama's old school friends that he did attend a Muslim school and he did recite the Koran. What Obama should have done with this case was come out and say, "When I was younger and had no choice but to listen to my parents, I did believe in Islam. But now that I am older and wiser adn can think for myself, I know that Islam is false." That would have spared him all the controversy about where his faith lies. But instead, Obama, whether at the advice of his campaign manager or not, chooses to hide the issue and pretend it never happened. That's why you have this controversy. In my opinion, Obama should fire his campaign manager and get someone new because he quite frankly should be way ahead in the polls right now, as the Dems usually are at this time in the elections.

You make it sound like being Islamic is the same as being a sex offender, or something to be ashamed of/run from. Anyone who honestly think he's some sort of Islamic Manchurian Candidate simply shouldn't be allowed to vote, or operate heavy machinery.

There's a reason why I think everyone should be forced to take a simple nonpartisan test before they're allowed to vote. And, yes, I think "What is the Bush Doctrine?" should be on it. If you don't know what the Bush Doctrine is, don't vote, you're too ignorant.

[bhiggy1961]

1). You do know that Obama's tax plan will actually lower taxes for the great majority of people, right? Unless you do make over 250k.

Why is Obama still spinning this garbage about his tax plan? It simply will not work, as the American people are smarter than what he thinks. He plans on raising the corporate tax rate. Now as long as you don't purchase anything (gas, food,etc.) then it won't affect you.

[MarkB]

Just FTR - as a kid, you normally go to school wherever the hell your parents send you - Muslim school or not. Not really too much choice involved. Also, I can name 20 people I know, myself included, that can recite sections of the Qur'an, as well as the whole thing, who are not Muslim.

Now, I'll go back to lurking this thread.

[piratesmvp04]

1). You do know that Obama's tax plan will actually lower taxes for the great majority of people, right? Unless you do make over 250k. Frankly, I'm against both of their tax cuts until we balance the budget, since Bush's administration has increased the national debt by 3.1 trillion.

Obama wants to get rid of the Bush taxcuts. The main taxcut loss that will hurt Americans is the Marriage tax. That tax will affect many middleclass families, so I don't see why Obama's plan will lower taxes.

2). Drilling is such a stupid nonissue. At the very least, it will be 7 years before a single drop of oil from what we used to call ANWR will hit a gas tank, and it's more likely 10-15 years. In the meantime, McCain has no plan whatsoever for alternate fuels, which are our only true hope to loose ourselves from foreign oil.

American oil companies (can't remember at the moment which ones) have said that they could begin doing some drilling within a month. The 10 years crap the liberals have been talking about is absolutely false. Taking 10 years to drill for oil will only happen if we use 1970s technology. We have new technology today that could start bringing in oil very quickly. And even if it does take 10 years, does that mean we should never start it? You mind as well not send your kids to school since it'll 12 years for them to graduate.

3). You can't win what's already lost. If Bush is ready to cut and run, what will it take McCain to ever leave? Again, he refuses to even give a hypothetical. And the Bush administration's illegal incursion into Iraq has been the single greatest boon to Al Qaeda since it was Maktab al-Khadamat fighting the Soviets. I don't really know if I can trust these people to handle the War on Terror.

You keep saying Iraq is a lost cause. So, let me ask you these questions. What will happen when the US pulls out of Iraq? Can the Iraqi government take care of itself? And what will the terrorists try to do with the weak government?

You make it sound like being Islamic is the same as being a sex offender, or something to be ashamed of/run from. Anyone who honestly think he's some sort of Islamic Manchurian Candidate simply shouldn't be allowed to vote, or operate heavy machinery.

There's a reason why I think everyone should be forced to take a simple nonpartisan test before they're allowed to vote. And, yes, I think "What is the Bush Doctrine?" should be on it. If you don't know what the Bush Doctrine is, don't vote, you're too ignorant.

I didn't say that being Islamic is the "same as being a sex offender." But some anti-Obama people do. I just made a neutral statement for what I believe Obama should have done.

Also, the fact that you said "Anyone who honestly think he's some sort of Islamic Manchurian Candidate simply shouldn't be allowed to vote, or operate heavy machinery." proves the point that liberals only want to take away our freedom. I believe everyone has the right to vote. I do think that there are some people who shouldn't vote due to their lack of knowledge of issues, but I don't go around saying that liberals shouldn't vote. The People are allowed to decide who gets voted in. The Electoral College is the balance check on the People, so I don't see anything wrong with everyone voting.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, any Bush fan like me knows what the Bush doctrine is. It's the foreign policy that the United States can attack countries that oppose freedom or support terrorists. It's kind of like the Monroe doctrine in some ways except it applies to the whole world, not just the Americas.

[krawhitham]

Obama wants to get rid of the Bush taxcuts. The main taxcut loss that will hurt Americans is the Marriage tax. That tax will affect many middleclass families, so I don't see why Obama's plan will lower taxes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060900950.html

[catzrthecoolest]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8060900950.html

To be honest with you, i don't think obama's plan is very fair to the rich at all. But mccain's plan is not much better... i think the tax should be the same for everyone...

[krawhitham]

American oil companies (can't remember at the moment which ones) have said that they could begin doing some drilling within a month. The 10 years crap the liberals have been talking about is absolutely false. Taking 10 years to drill for oil will only happen if we use 1970s technology. We have new technology today that could start bringing in oil very quickly. And even if it does take 10 years, does that mean we should never start it? You mind as well not send your kids to school since it'll 12 years for them to graduate.

A) it will take at least 7 years, more like 10. They do not even know where the deposits are exactly to drill.

Oil companies currently have 38 million acres under oil lease programs that they don't drill on now, why not start there?

c) We produce about 5 million barrels and we consume 20 million barrels daily. It is an estimated that there are around 18 billion barrels in the underwater areas now off-limits to drilling. That's significantly less than in oil fields open for business in the Gulf of Mexico, coastal Alaska and off the coast of southern California, where there are 10.1 billion barrels of known oil reserves as well as an estimated 85.9 billion more.

So out of the 96 billion under ground or sea we pull 5 million a day, that is roughly 1 million pulled per day for every 20 billion we have.

New off shore drilling would produce another 1 million bringing our total to 6 of the needed 20 million per day.

Two things, Now do you really think 5 vs 6 will make much difference when we need 20? 2nd do you really think the Oil Companies will charge less for oil? The oil companies will charge the same for 6 as they were for 5 because we will still need 14 million from other countries. Why would an oil company charge a lower price?

It is not the government drilling it is Big Oil and they are not going to lower the price they are just going to make more money, and they already made a record amount this year

d) both candidates were against offshore drill, and now both are willing to allow it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/m...g_n_107872.html

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/search/conten...0801obama1.html

[piratesmvp04]

A) it will take at least 7 years, more like 10. They do not even know where the deposits are exactly to drill.

Okay, fine. If you want to believe that, that's your opinion. Oil companies on the other hand, believe they could start doing stuff in much less time than that. And even if it does take 7-10 years, we've gotta start sometime.

Oil companies currently have 38 million acres under oil lease programs that they don't drill on now, why not start there?

The land that Congress has leased to them has very little oil on it. Plus, the leases are set to expire soon, so why would the oil companies want to waste their money on this land that will yield no profit?

c) We produce about 5 million barrels and we consume 20 million barrels daily. It is an estimated that there are around 18 billion barrels in the underwater areas now off-limits to drilling. That's significantly less than in oil fields open for business in the Gulf of Mexico, coastal Alaska and off the coast of southern California, where there are 10.1 billion barrels of known oil reserves as well as an estimated 85.9 billion more.

So out of the 96 billion under ground or sea we pull 5 million a day, that is roughly 1 million pulled per day for every 20 billion we have.

New off shore drilling would produce another 1 million bringing our total to 6 of the needed 20 million per day.

Two things, Now do you really think 5 vs 6 will make much difference when we need 20? 2nd do you really think the Oil Companies will charge less for oil? The oil companies will charge the same for 6 as they were for 5 because we will still need 14 million from other countries. Why would an oil company charge a lower price?

That's your opinion (or the opinion of whichever article you read for that info). We believe, on the other hand, that ANWR and Colorado have one of the largest oil supplies in the world. If we drill here as well as offshore, we will have enough oil to supply this country for a long time and search for alternative fuels in the meantime. But even if you still believe that there is not enough oil in those places, why are you against drilling? The government is not paying a dime to drill it; the bill is all on the oil companies. The federal government will not be affected by drilling there, so why are they against it?

It is not the government drilling it is Big Oil and they are not going to lower the price they are just going to make more money, and they already made a record amount this year

Uh, actually the oil companies still make a profit in the single % digits. That's much less than a company like Microsoft, for example, that makes 30% profit.

d) both candidates were against offshore drill, and now both are willing to allow it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/m...g_n_107872.html

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/search/conten...0801obama1.html

Correct, but McCain has been a little more lenient towards drilling in his political career, whereas Obama more strongly believes the global warming myth. So, between the 2, I think McCain is more willing to drill.

[Sean O]

Okay, fine. If you want to believe that, that's your opinion. Oil companies on the other hand, believe they could start doing stuff in much less time than that. And even if it does take 7-10 years, we've gotta start sometime.

It's not an opinion when it's fact, dude. Between the widely publicized reports (WSJ, for one) and people I know who work in the oil industry, these are facts. We are not getting a drop out of ANWR in at least a half decade, and again, those are with highly optimistic plans. And do you really think this will help us long-term?

This isn't even factoring in the utter destruction of a National Park, which the Republicans don't seem to care about. ANWR drilling is a mirage, it's not going to help out anything. The numbers are out there, and all I ever see are baseless opinions instead of cold, hard facts.

edit:

A

t the present time, there has been no crude oil production in the ANWR coastal plain region. This analysis assumes that enactment of the legislation in 2008 would result in first production from the ANWR area in 10 years, i.e., 2018.

The primary constraints to a rapid development of ANWR oil resources are the limited weather “windows†for collecting seismic data and drilling wells (a 3-to-4 month winter window) and for ocean barging of heavy infrastructure equipment to the well site (a 2-to-3 month summer window).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anw...iaf(2008)03.pdf

The Department of Energy says 8-12 years.

[piratesmvp04]

It's not an opinion when it's fact, dude. Between the widely publicized reports (WSJ, for one) and people I know who work in the oil industry, these are facts. We are not getting a drop out of ANWR in at least a half decade, and again, those are with highly optimistic plans. And do you really think this will help us long-term?

This isn't even factoring in the utter destruction of a National Park, which the Republicans don't seem to give a **** about. ANWR drilling is a mirage, it's not going to help out anything. The numbers are out there, and all I ever see are baseless opinions instead of cold, hard facts.

I'm confused then when the oil companies say they could be doing stuff in a month (not actual drilling of course). But let's go with your numbers then. Even if it does take 10 years, why shouldn't we start now instead of loafing around wasting more and more time? As I said, if we're not going to do something just because it'll take a long time, we might as well not send our kids to school because it'll take 12 years for them to graduate. We might as well not plant trees because it'll takes years for them to fully grow.

And, what national park are you talking about? You can't mean ANWR. ANWR is a desolate place where no human could survive. It is one of the worst wilderness' to be in, and there would be no harm in drilling there.

[Sean O]

I'm confused then when the oil companies say they could be doing stuff in a month (not actual drilling of course).

What possible reason could the oil companies have to mislead citizens and politicians, hmmm.

But let's go with your numbers then. Even if it does take 10 years, why shouldn't we start now instead of loafing around wasting more and more time? As I said, if we're not going to do something just because it'll take a long time, we might as well not send our kids to school because it'll take 12 years for them to graduate. We might as well not plant trees because it'll takes years for them to fully grow.

Because it's like a bandaid on a gunshot wound. Our problem isn't that we've run out of oil, it's that we're so dependent on oil, foreign or otherwise, that it's causing us major problems in every facet of life. If you have a massive cocaine problem, you try to stop, you don't go searching around for more freaking cocaine.

We need to find alternate fuel sources, because that's the basic problem we're facing. We need to come up with a clean, economic alternative or we're going to be in trouble. We will never be able to produce enough oil within this country, so if we want to become self-sufficient, we need to find something else.

And, what national park are you talking about? You can't mean ANWR. ANWR is a desolate place where no human could survive. It is one of the worst wilderness' to be in, and there would be no harm in drilling there.

From wiki, on ANWR:

"During summer, peregrine falcons, gyrfalcons, and golden eagles build nests on cliffs. Harlequin ducks and red-breasted mergansers are seen on swift-flowing rivers. Dall sheep and wolves are active all year, while grizzly bears and arctic ground squirrels are frequently seen during summer but hibernate in winter."

I don't trust the oil companies to keep this land safe and unpolluted.

[piratesmvp04]

What possible reason could the oil companies have to mislead citizens and politicians, hmmm.

Because it's like a bandaid on a gunshot wound. Our problem isn't that we've run out of oil, it's that we're so dependent on oil, foreign or otherwise, that it's causing us major problems in every facet of life. If you have a massive cocaine problem, you try to stop, you don't go searching around for more freaking cocaine.

We need to find alternate fuel sources, because that's the basic problem we're facing. We need to come up with a clean, economic alternative or we're going to be in trouble. We will never be able to produce enough oil within this country, so if we want to become self-sufficient, we need to find something else.

From wiki, on ANWR:

"During summer, peregrine falcons, gyrfalcons, and golden eagles build nests on cliffs. Harlequin ducks and red-breasted mergansers are seen on swift-flowing rivers. Dall sheep and wolves are active all year, while grizzly bears and arctic ground squirrels are frequently seen during summer but hibernate in winter."

I don't trust the oil companies to keep this land safe and unpolluted.

Okay, good points, but from what I've heard, it's not a national park. There are not even roads or paths that go through there because the place is so uninhabitable.

You're right when you say that it is a band-aid. I call it a stop-gap while we look for alternative fuels. But this is my belief: We will never be completely free from oil. We don't just use oil to power our cars. We use it to power our electricity too. There is no alternative out that is good enough to replace that. People tend to just look at oil as car fuel, but there's much more than that. Also, why are you so against the US using oil? What is wrong with oil? I personally don't see anything wrong with it. What I do see wrong is that we're the only country in the world that is not agressively searching for new oil sources.