United States Presidential Election 2008 - Official Discussion Thread

Started by BackFire143 pages

The sex ed ad frankly made me lose all remaining respect I had for McCain. Attacking a man for trying to protect children from being raped is just disgusting and shameful.

And then it said "sex education before learning how to read?"

I wanted to go punch McCain myself. And you know some people like Sith are eating that shit up!

This is why I barely give a damn about politics.

Originally posted by BackFire
The sex ed ad frankly made me lose all remaining respect I had for McCain. Attacking a man for trying to protect children from being raped is just disgusting and shameful.

You got it all wrong, McCain is trying to protect America's children from sexual predator's like Obama, who want to teach little children about sodomy (and probably Islam) by using hands-on learning and visual aids.

Is there actually any logical reason the republicans have mentioned to not vote for Obama?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Is there actually any logical reason the republicans have mentioned to not vote for Obama?

As much as you seem to think, the Republican party isn't completely incompetent and deplorable. So yes, yes they have. Unfortunately, shit-flinging catches peoples eyes and ears better than valid facts. I.E. "John McCain raped an Asian baby" sells better than "John McCain doesn't have an exit strategy".

IMO, the Right seems to want to stoop to lower tactics quicker than the Left, but I could just be biased here.

Originally posted by Robtard
As much as you seem to think, the Republican party isn't completely incompetent and deplorable. So yes, yes they have. Unfortunately, shit-flinging catches peoples eyes and ears better than valid facts. I.E. "John McCain raped an Asian baby" sells better than "John McCain doesn't have an exit strategy".

IMO, the Right seems to want to stoop to lower tactics quicker than the Left, but I could just be biased here.

Nah, they are very dirty in their tactics, I mean, they even go as far as claiming the democrats are "unamerican". What the hell?

Even though there are logical reasons to not vote for Obama, I don't see the McCain camp actually mentioning any.

Originally posted by Robtard
IMO, the Right seems to want to stoop to lower tactics quicker than the Left, but I could just be biased here.
I see below-the-belt tactics from both sides of the political spectrum, although not necessarily from the campaigns, moreso than other elections where it has been even more one-sided. However I think the Republicans are both more partial to it; and frankly much better at it.

To get back to this lipstick 'issue' for a moment if I may...

The thing I find most troubling about this 'lipstick-pig' comment is that it has literally dominated the mainstream news media all day today.

Meanwhile, one of the biggest bailouts is happening with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and major corruption is involved IMO), possible scandal involved with oil companies and the Department of the Interior, the three big auto companies (General Motors, Ford and Chrysler went to Congress asking for somewhere around fifty billion dollars in loans and basically to me, our economy is as fragile as ever. Most of that is economic stuff (and corruption). There are countless other important issues that deserve time.

Yet, we're wasting time on this stupid shit? Our Media should be more responsible than that, but they aren't. The American people should be more informed, but they aren't. Oh well.

What's funny is even some of the news personalities and contributors are saying stuff like in 6 months we'll look back at this day as the most silly story of the campaign. And then they just continue spewing it out like it's an important news event.

Originally posted by Robtard
"John McCain raped an Asian baby" sells better than "John McCain doesn't have an exit strategy".

The baby being Asian makes it worse somehow? 😕

It wasn't McCain, it was me.

Robtard uses examples from experience.

Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
The baby being Asian makes it worse somehow? 😕

Smaller . . . . I hesitate to use the phrase "messy and rupture prone" but I seem to have done so anyway.

Obama: Lip Stick Pig

Obama: wrapped up stink fish.....Sarah Barracuda

Biden: You should support Stem cells if you have a disabled kid.

S. Carolina Dem Chair: "only accomplishment she had was she didn't have an abortion ."

Biden: Hillary is "easily qualified to be vice president … and quite frankly, might have been a better pick than me."

😂

Even if some of them are mistakes/misunderstandings, they're all from the last 24 hours.

Are the Dems TRYING to lose?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Obama: Lip Stick Pig

Obama: wrapped up stink fish.....Sarah Barracuda

Biden: You should support Stem cells if you have a disabled kid.

S. Carolina Dem Chair: "only accomplishment she had was she didn't have an abortion ."

Biden: Hillary is "easily qualified to be vice president … and quite frankly, might have been a better pick than me."

😂

Even if some of them are mistakes/misunderstandings, they're all from the last 24 hours.

Are the Dems TRYING to lose?

By using easily understandable metaphors and noting that helping the disabled is a good thing? Those monsters.

Stem cell research doesn't have much relevance to trisomy condition, afaik...

from realclearpolitics.com:

Words Obama Will Regret
By Ken Blackwell

On Monday, Senator Obama uttered one sentence that could haunt him until Election Day. He said of Senator McCain and Governor Palin telling voters they would bring change, "they must think you're stupid." Given his stances on the surge, social issues, and his past, Mr. Obama will regret those words.

Let's start with social issues like Second Amendment freedoms. Mr. Obama denies that he's ever supported banning handguns, right after the landmark Heller case where the Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban.

When a 1996 questionnaire surfaced that had asked if Mr. Obama supported banning all handguns, his one-word written answer was "yes." He said an unnamed staffer must have filled it out without his knowledge. Then another copy surfaced -- this one with his handwriting on it. He says he must not have read that particular question. Sure.

On the hot-button issue of abortion, last month saw a growing concern over Mr. Obama's opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which states if an abortion is botched and a live birth results, the baby is entitled to medical care. The federal version of this law unanimously passed the U.S. Senate.

However, when a version of this bill came to the Illinois Senate, Mr. Obama opposed it. When confronted last month with the fact that the federal version of this bill had been supported by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, Mr. Obama said the he would have supported the federal version. Those suggesting otherwise were lying, he said. Then it was revealed that a second bill was introduced in the Illinois Senate, and this one was identical to the federal version. Mr. Obama opposed that bill as well. He has yet to come up with an explanation on that one.

And there are Mr. Obama's associations. Let's start with the infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Mr. Obama expressed shock that Rev. Wright would say things like "God damn America" and say the American government created AIDS to commit genocide against black people. Yet he belonged to that church for 20 years. He was married by Rev. Wright, had his children baptized by him, and even took his book title from one of the good reverend's sermons.

When Rev. Wright's outrageous diatribes surfaced, Mr. Obama refused to renounce him. Then when Rev. Wright repeated the same statements at the National Press Club, and Mr. Obama had clinched the nomination, suddenly he denounced him. Why? He said Rev. Wright's statements in D.C. were unlike anything he had heard before and he was shocked. But those statements had been in the news for months. Are we to believe that Mr. Obama had not read or heard any of the news for weeks? Or that he never heard anything similar in more than 20-years of listening to Rev. Wright's sermons? Hmm.

Bill Ayers is another stunner. Mr. Ayers bombed a police station and the Pentagon, and recently said he wished he had done more. He is an unrepentant terrorist, but is popular among the ultra-left in Chicago. When Mr. Obama was asked about Mr. Ayers, he implied that he barely knew him.

But once again facts have surfaced. We now know that Mr. Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Mr. Obama. They served for years together on a board with only a few people, and they worked closely on financial matters during those years. Does that sound like someone he barely knows?

And then we have the Iraq war. Congress authorized war against Iraq in 2002. The vote in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate was an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 77-23. The intelligence provided to Congress was profoundly flawed, but based on the intelligence presented, Congress voted for war. That is why those voting for the war included John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton,and -- yes -- Joe Biden.

Yet Mr. Obama, who was in the Illinois Senate at the time and thus had no vote, opposed the war. He says that this shows his superior judgment, and that those voting for the war, like John McCain, lack the judgment to be president. But his vice presidential pick Joe Biden voted for the war, and Mr. Obama says Mr. Biden has the judgment to be president. How do you reconcile that?

And finally we have the surge. Mr. Obama opposed it, saying it was doomed to fail. Yet the troop surge has succeeded brilliantly, and all but the most dedicated diehards admit it. Now Mr. Obama acknowledges that it succeeded, but does not admit his predictions of failure were wrong. How were they not wrong?

These actions have made a pattern. Mr. Obama has changed his position on numerous occasions, cannot explain why he has done so, and yet his campaign expects us to believe that he never changed his mind on any of those issues.

He must think we're stupid.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/words_obama_will_regret.html

Gallup daily tracking still has McCain up by 5 points: http://www.gallup.com/poll/110212/Gallup-Daily-McCain-48-Obama-43.aspx

RCP average of polls goes to McCain by 2.4 points: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

(+1 for Obama, 3 ties, +2 for McCain twice, +3/+5/+10 for McCain once)

There will be another forum tonight on CNN (on 9/11 and service) and Palin's interview with ABC tomorrow night and Friday.

If the republicans falter, it will be Obama's chance to pull even or regain the lead.

Should they both perform well, it will either even up or stay the same.

Should the GOP come out on top, the lead will widen.

Gallup polls mean nothing.

Interestingly, 538 has McCain winning popular vote, but Obama winning the election.

Anyway, it depends where you look.

electoral-vote.com has Obama winning in CO and NV, with McCain beating him by 2% in IN, OH, NM and VA. All polls taken around Sep 8.

Oh yeah, and it has FL tied.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Gallup polls mean nothing.

Interestingly, 538 has McCain winning popular vote, but Obama winning the election.

Anyway, it depends where you look.

electoral-vote.com has Obama winning in CO and NV, with McCain beating him by 2% in IN, OH, NM and VA. All polls taken around Sep 8.

Oh yeah, and it has FL tied.

The only poll that matters is in Nov. 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The only poll that matters is in Nov. 😉
Yeah, you've already said that.