Media Curve Debate Results: Independents Go To Obama in all Categories

Simmons: right on!

Is this a preview of how he is going to treat leaders of other countries he disagrees with? Dont make eye contact, ignore them, treat them with contempt? That will make us lots of friends and contribute to world peace? Hah!

His behavior during the debate is consistent with his behavior his entire life. The man has got a long and distinguished record of rash actions and inability to control his emotions. Those watching him closely for the first time may have had their eyes open a bit. Those of us who've been paying attention already knew what to expect.

I don't know if it convinced anyone last night, but it might have soothed some fears. People who look to debate performance aren't convinced only by what they see on paper (read: experience junkies), so any of these debates can do nothing but help Obama--as long as he doesn't say anything that jars their senses. He looked good, I think he sounded good. I think McCain looked pretty good, but didn't play to moderates with the confidence or assurance (tempered by calm) that Obama did.

I don't think that the McCain camp is really thinking these debates through. Why try to show differences with Obama where the country is against you? Why be aggressive when you need independants/moderates who aren't out for blood? It might rev up the base, but that mission is as accomplished as its going to be. I think that it's because that just isn't who McCain is. That's all upside for Democrats.

A possible only real person going to convince people to swing Obama or 3rd Party is Palin.
She needs more interviews. She need more time with the press.

The Katie Couric-Palin interview has change some people to vote Obama, Not to Vote or Vote 3rd Party.

My VP of Operations is now voting for Obama as of Thursday. We show him the interview and he was in disgust. It was the first time, he said nothing political about Pro-Republican. He was completely silent. He watched the video rest of the day Thursday and all day Friday over and over per our IT monitors our internet network bandwidth and access. He showed his wife and wife was a swing voter not Obama Supporter.

Palin, Good Job! Keep up the good work! The political running mate in the history of the United States.

The ability to have civil dialog and amicable disagree with people is critical to bridging sensitive issues and building working relationships. That is true whether the discussion is taking place in Congress or in an international venue. Although the objective last night was a debate, not a negotiation, McCain's body language spoke loudly about his ability to function in a tense environment. Constructive dialog is thwarted when a person's contempt is as evident as McCain's was last night. A John Wayne / Charles Bronson maverick persona may play well at the movies and when revenge is the objective, but that approach will be counterproductive to building consensus for positive direction, such as energy independence and restoring esteem among our international neighbors. Obama is clearly better equipped to lead in our current national and international environment.

Did you know this: They ran ads before the debate stating McCain won. An obvious error but now we know it is spin.

Aalaf Alot,

It sure sounds like your workplace is very productive. That shows that you and your VP of Operations are just like the "poor morons" who believe they are entitled to money for nothing!

Obama is ahead in the electoral college.

You noticed that too, huh? He loathes Obama so much he could not hide it. This is going to hurt McCain with the voting public. Viewers were turned off by that

This is why I believe that the independents found Obama more favorable.

Mccain was very condescending and his mannerisms were a huge turn off.

In 2000 I was a huge supporter of Mccain and now I cannot believe the slimy character he has turned into..

It is freakishly odd..

The thing is that this coverage has got to be slanted because it's generally fact-free. You can call the candidates on the mis-statements or mis-characterizations, but that's going to be biased--one persons mis-characterization is another's "twist" (and another's "lie"). We tune in to get other people's impressions and when we don't like what we hear on FOX (like this morning where they were pretty absurd in their editorializing) we go to CNN or MSNBC to hear them talk about stuff we care about.

FOX focused on Iraq (at least this morning) and the alternative story-tellings one can do. The woman on the show had a problem of Obama's characterization of Afghanistan--saying al Qaeda was in Pakistan b/c the US pushed them out of Afghanistan--and she wanted Obama to acknowledge that--and that she couldn't even listen to the rest of what Obama was saying because he didn't address that issue.

There's a lot of truth in that. If we have a thought, we want it addressed by the commentators. Talk about the dismissal, the fact that McCain didn't look at Obama, make fun of Obama for the "I have a bracelet too" statement. And when they don't, we aren't listening to what's going on=>boredom=>changing the channel.

I'm uncertain as with you if McCain is spiteful and hateful. However, it is clear that he does have a volatile temperament which is the LAST thing needed in the White House. I truly believe and concur with Obama and the EXPERIENCED former Secretaries of state, America needs to engage in a less military approach to engaging allies. We don't need or have the military resources for MORE unnecessary wars! Wars costs TRILLIONS and countless lives of our youth! Persuasive and effective verbal engagement cost NOTHING!Hasn't our experience taught us even as children...The smart guy with the gift of persuasion...invariably was able to conquer the rantings and aggressive assaults of the bully!

It's a simple and effective approach...Try not to think to long on this obvious logic.However, if war is the clear alternative, a strategic, logical, and intelligent approach must still prevail. Not that of an angry, irrational, impulsive, and catastrophic recourse...aka McCain.

I think the most genuine and intense subject McCain brought up was his commitment to win the war in Iraq and not let those soldiers come home defeated. My heart literally bled for him.

I still remember my brothers going off to Nam and how I feared for them. I remember how they felt upon their return. I wouldn't wish that awful time on these troops in Iraq, either. I just felt I went to such an emotional place really fast right along with McCain and it wasn't a good thing. It's the kind of thing that makes you lose your objectivity.

This war isn't Vietnam and these soldiers will be appreciated for their service no matter the outcome. America has to come to grips with the fact that the Iraqi situtation isn't a win situation. Our world is so much more complex with these terrorists. They are a reality that we'll be dealing with for a long time. We can't put all of our efforts indefinitely in one place when they're regrouping elsewhere. We have to talk to whoever can help bring this problem under control. We have to convince the world at large that we aren't going to continue to do what Bush started. The world has lost its trust in our ability to resolve this situation and that sort of thing just feeds on itself. We need a change in leadership.

Sunnyside,
Certainly a heart wrenching analysis on your part. However, the facts are clear. The soldiers are defeated in every aspect. Why doesn't someone ask those who are fighting and at certain risk of dying if victory is eminent or even possible? While your heart is bleeding for McCain,our soldiers are bleeding to death in Iraq. Which of the two is TRULY tragic. What is truly heart wrenching. They're dying for a cause they believed was a known LIE!!...and still remains a lie.

Your heart "literally bled?" Um...

[[otb - " Your heart "literally bled?" Um..." ]] Yeah, I know, thanks for being kind... I know you mean "Duh?" (very embarrassed at this point).

>>Jestjohn, I know our soldiers are bleeding in Iraq. I found it extremely disturbing that McCain seemed to be confusing the two situations. I didn't want the war to start in the first place. I'm one of those people that were told ...... well, a lot of unmentionable things because I wasn't for the war. Nothing has change my mind. I'm voting for Obama, but McCain did make me understand his "feeling" about the situation. It's not an objective one and I see that more clearly than ever before. I wish I could have voted Obama in as soon as he started talking about finding a way to bring our soldiers home from Iraq and shifting others to address the original task. Even prior to that I wish my opinion had held any sway during that time we were railroaded into the war by Bush and company.

I feel tremendous anxiety when I think about over 100,000+ dead. It's incomprehensible to think that our country went so far off the track and we still didn't come anywhere close to getting the real 9/11 perpetrators. We'll never be able to repay our soldiers for all of their dedicated service, but I'll do my best to honor those that do return and those that don't, including their families, including members of my family.

PBS is the only network that is fair and balanced and they do not depend on sponsors. They get their money from public donations. I like them because sometimes I disagree and sometimes I agree. They have right wing shows and left wing shows. Fox is owned by the Neocon Rupert Murdoch. Msnbc is owned by GE and Microsoft. Each are large contributors to both parties. If what is said does not agree with your ideas it is a biased network. Is it the truth? That should be all that matters. If you disagree the web has many other places to find out the truth. Thats why McCain should go back to telling the truth. He is playing a very dangerous game here bending the truth as he is. If he wins and does a 180 on what he is saying he will be castigated by his own party. If he is elected what world leader wants to sit and negotiate with a liar?

Sunnyside:

This war isn't Vietnam and these soldiers will be appreciated for their service no matter the outcome.

Too true. I was too young to serve in Vietnam or have peers who served, but I had to sit through the endless debates of the 70's and 80's about who lost Vietnam. It disturbs me greatly that McCain and the conservatives are sill fighting that war and seem willing to put up our "blood and treasure" for a do-over in Iraq. Or in Georgia. Or in Pakistan. Or in Venezuela.

I have very mixed feelings about Iraq and ponder what is the right action. The war was wrong. The post-war pillaging of Iraq was wrong. The surge was a gamble that had a chance of succeeding. Timetables for war are not a good idea. The surge might be succeeding, but perhaps at the cost of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I can only conclude that the crowd who have been running the show have little insight and poor judgment. Throw the bums out. Bring in new people, bums maybe, but you have to go with change. I trust Obama, but I worry.

intellectually honest-501027. It's called AMERICA! Freedom to choose! Yes, I watch MSNBC because it best suits my views; however, I listen to National Public Radio, and CSPAN on occasion. I agree with you when you say journalists sway public opinion but it's not for the reasons you've stated. It's because Americans are not educated. It is difficult to sway the educated because they already know what's going on. The average American doesn't know what's going on until they see it on television. I've know for years about the collapse of the economy and saw it coming. I'm pleased it came to light while Bush was in office because it shows the republican politicians for who and what they are. Place blame where it should be placed and that's on the education system which is not much better then the education given in third world countries.

I've know for years about the collapse of the economy and saw it coming. I'm pleased it came to light while Bush was in office because it shows the republican politicians for who and what they are. Place blame where it should be placed and that's on the education system which is not much better then the education given in third world countries.

My family has been discussing the imminent economic downturn for the past three years at least. I too am glad the Republican's true colors are now exposed as well.

The biggest reason for me though isn't the state of the economy (because I believe the CEOs deserve most of the blame for the crisis, among other reasons), it is that Republicans, who had control of the Congress, allowed Bush and Co. to continue to profit off the lives of our military and stone wall investigations.

When all the info came out exposing that the intelligence was cherry picked by the administration in order to go to war, along with the leaking of a CIA officials name and the firing of a Col. who exposed the no bid contracts issue etc. the Republicans stood by and and did nothing and in fact helped defend their actions and played partisan games with people's lives.

Even though 75% of Americans in 2006 wanted out of Iraq they still pushed for more war, completely ignoring the people whom they represent.

They then held the lives of our soldiers over the heads of Dems with the Iraq War. If they voted for funding the war it continues as they wished, if they voted against funding the war they leave them without the necessary armor and supplies they need to operate and live.

House minority leader John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, said Republicans would vote against the war-funding measure if it contained restrictions that inhibited Bush, but he said Republicans would have to see a detailed proposal before reaching any such decision.

"We will fight every effort that the Democrats attempt to put handcuffs on the president to stymie his ability to wage this war in Iraq and to win it," Boehner said. Boston Globe

For Christ sake --what kind of American does this to their brothers and sisters?

Timetables for war are not a good idea. The surge might be succeeding, but perhaps at the cost of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mark Liberal, I disagree because we are not at war with Iraq --they asked for a timetable. We call them a sovereign country --let's honor that.
Not to mention Bush laid out the entire "surge" plan in his State of the Union 2007, including numbers of troops and a time table of five years in which we were going to deploy 92,000 more troops ... and the difference is?

Words of a fool... "There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honor in retreat."- George W. Bush Jan. 2006

I know they keep saying it's too late to impeach Bush, but do you think we can exile him and Cheney and revoke their pensions? After all they didn't fulfill their duties and they left us flat broke. I like the notion that this symbolic gesture could ensure we will NEVER put up with this type of leadership in future. We could make unprecedented history- yet again- by booting them out of the country. What does that entail, can we do it?

Act2

You are joking about the lies...

Mccain/Palin campaign is built of lies.....

There are a lot of things that you can say about Obama but as a mccain reporter you may want to steer clear of talking about lies....

Act2, Obama did not lie. In fact, Kissinger recently called for high level talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, "I do not believe that we can make conditions."

Which is exactly what Obama said, that Kissinger supports talking with Iran with no conditions. He's not saying at the Presidential level, which McCain kept trying to imply he was saying.

Clean your ears out. Obama said he would meet with the president of Iran without preconditions. Meeting with high level diplomats isn't a US president meeting face to face with Ahmadinejad!

What are all these lies that everyone accuses McCain camp of? Please tell me. I really want to know. You lefties keep saying that McCain is built on lies but you never back it up with anything substantial. Let's take a look at Obama's campaign or his whole career for that matter. It is built on corruption and lies. At least McCain has a little honor.

You should stand corrected. Obama wasn't caught in a lie...That's typically the antics of your candidates, Mcain/Palin. Check the prior coverage of CNN. The former secretaries of state were discussing this issue in a bipartisan exchange. Henry Kissinger did in fact agree with his colleagues that America must engage in a "softer approach" involving more discussions with middle eastern countries.

Try something new...check the facts first! For God's sakes voters...eduacate yourselves on the issues and facts! If not, waive your right to vote on November 4th. It's voters like yourselves who put Bush into the White House for TWO terms.Thanks for NOTHING.

I'm not sure in what order these things were stated but I know I heard them. I'll paraphrase:
McCain said I'll talk to Iran with preconditions. They would have to meet those preconditions before I talk to them.
Obama said it's not like I'm going to have the other head of state over for tea. We'll have to have talks at a lower level to set the framework, then proceed from there. In addition, Obama also said Ahmedinajad isn't the guy that's in charge over there. There are others that are in charge. I would be talking to them.

It's all a wash to me. McCain first said I won't talk to Iran because they support terrorists and now he says he will with preconditions. Obama earlier in the primaries said he would talk to anyone without preconditions and now says more specifically that his staff will begin the process. It doesn't really matter, Secretaries of State are asked to explore things initially before the President commits. Both McCain and Obama would do this and they both know it.

The decision should be based on the question of whether what we are doing now is working or not working. In effect, all those former secretaries of state said talk to Iran without precondition. This is the mistake they see Bush making. I don't see McCain as a carbon copy of Bush, but he isn't listening to the experts, either.

Another Lie I will put to rest and I will Hilight Kissingers remarks This is from an interview with Baker, Albright, Powell, and Kissinger with CNN Christian Amanpour http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/20/se.01.html

"KISSINGER: Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.

Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about?

But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government.

AMANPOUR: So it looks like there's possibly some different advice to the next president.

That was not a lie. Kissinger changed what he said originally after he was called on it. Obama did the same. Obama ment exactly what Kissinger did but in his haste to answer the question he made a short answer. Nobody negotiates without prior contact.

Agreed, Nobody negotiates without prior contact, but the fact remains, Kissinger believes that preconditions should not be part of the equation.

So, I stand by my statement.

Obama never said he would sit down President to President with Iran, in fact he said the president of Iran would not be the one to talk to anyway, and he is absolutely correct.

logdump,

Isn't about time you were flushed?

You are stinking up all of Newsvine!

grate 1 too

You sound like you've had too much cool-aid ....again...why don't you pull off the road so you don't hurt anyone else your lack of judgment is scary...

for those of you wanting to know the lies McCain has told: try these:
1. Obama will raise taxes on couples earning $42,000
2. Obama wants children to be taught sex education
3. That Mccain supports our vets. He has received a grade of D- from Veterans groups across the country. McCain did not support the GI Bill sponsored by Webb which Bush signed into law. Obama has received a grade of B{
4. Obama was involved with Reyers to blow up the Capitol
5. Last night, McCain, straight out of the gate, stated that he warned of the impending financial crisis two years ago. McCain himself said he did not see this coming.
6. Raines is an advisor to Obama. He is not
7. That is chief campaign manager, quit working for Fanny Mae in 2005. The man was still working for FM up until last month.
I could go on and on, but these are only a few. HONESTLY, PEOPLE!! HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT ON OF THE CANDIDATE AND NOT KNOW WHAT HE HAS BEEN SAYING

1. What McCain said is that Obama voted in favor of raising taxes no people making 42000 not that he will raise taxes on them now. This is not a lie, it is a fact. On another note, Obama does not say he will raise taxes on the middle class but his tax plan will very much effect the middle class in a negative way. Sure he will mail you a check for 1000.00 to make you feel all warm and fuzzy and you won't even notice the prices going up on everything right before your eyes.

2. Obama did vote in favor of a comprehensive sex education bill that targets kids as young as Kindergarden. Spin it how you want. I don't know exactly what McCains words were but it wasn't much of a lie.

3. I am not going to waste time addressing this one if you don't have anything specific to reference.

4. McCain, nor any other republican, ever accused Obama of being involved with Reyers, or even William Ayers for that matter, to blow up the capital. The facts here are, and the name is Ayers, that William Ayers is a terrorist who's organization did set off bombs at the capital as well as initiated attacks on PDs and the Pentagon. These are facts. It is also a fact that Obama served on boards with him during his time with the Wood foundation and Obama's carreer was launched at William Ayers' house. Of course, when Obama was asked, Ayers is just this guy that lived on his street.

5. McCain did warn of this along with other republicans. Take the time to watch these videos.

6. Not a lie

7. I need some more context on this one as well. I am not sure what was said so without a reference, I am not going talk on this one.

Why don't you stop guessing and actually do a little research before opening your mouth?

Didn't you hear McCain's perspective on truth-telling? (With respect to killing terrorist leaders in Pakistan) "You don't say that out loud!" Spoken like a true adulterer.

WHAT??? Are you people insane?

The lies of Palin:

Some highlights

This is just from her RNC speech...

Palin: "To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."

Palin slashed funding for schools for special needs kids by 62% in her Alaska budget.

Palin: "I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves."

She claims to be against Pork and gov't spending, but she received 17 MILLION dollars for her podunk town in her 6 years as mayor! Obscene! She's also quoted as SUPPORTING the Bridge to Nowhere early in the project.

Palin: "But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate."

Ruth Marcus summarizes his record on reform:

"He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed -- again to the dismay of some colleagues -- to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers. He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns."

LIES! LIIIIES!

metonitoo:

Agree on the questions. I also don't think Lehrer did a good job of monitoring the time for each candidate! Didn't anyone notice that the last two minute questions that Leher allowed McCain to speak for another two minutes without giving Obama a chance to reply?

They counted the 2 minute questions and the rebuttal time, even in the debate Lehrer made it clear that each has had equal time given.

Act2

Asked President of Iraq to hold asking for US troop reduction until after the election - that is treason!

Source

Christian, but in his book he says if worse came to worst he would fall to his islam.

Which book and what page?

No source- No truth!!!!!

Look at the New York Post for the article of the treasonous act of Obama. Article written September15, 2008. President of Iraq confirmed it! As for his book, you buy it and read it! Its in there.

I don't hear contradiction on the Ayers comment, simmons. Maybe that one was just too 'in your face' to deny. Or maybe you are anti American as well.

You call that treason?!

Treason is lying to your country and inflating a minimal threat into a national crisis to dominate your citizenry through fear!!! And then utilizing that fear and "political capital" to force bad policy down the gut of the American People!!!

If we had invested half the monies simply lost to corruption and mismanagement in Iraq this country could be well on its way to independence from foreign oil and that much further down the road to true national security!

THAT, sir, is treason.

No ties to Ayers later found to have close working relationship.

That is pure spin. Obama was 8 when Ayers was active with Weatherman.

Using the republican six degrees of separation type "logic" if someone does community work with people they hardly know and found out later that they had criminal records they are guilty by association and have a "close working relationship". How stupid.

Palin professes to be a Christian, but she has lied about the bridge to nowhere, her foreign policy experience, is married to a man that belonged to a group that wanted to scede from the country. Her pastor wants to make gay people straight. Her pastor used a witch doctor, and her church is anti Semetic. GET A LIFE!!! AYERS WAS 40 YEARS AGO!! OBAMA WAS ABOUT 7 YRS OLD!! The man has been a professor living very quietly Palin has also lied about how she cares for special needs children and is being investigated for abuse of power in TROOPERGATE!
So, YOU NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR OWN CANDIDATES RECORDS BEFORE CASTING STONES AT THE OBAMA!

Act2
You think and sound like like a mindless and useless waste of rubble!!!

David J. Huff, Sr.-377567,

Senator Obama is sending his car for you. He would like to spend some quality time with you and bond as only two men can.

He promises he wont hurt you!

simmons
Are you capable to search the New Youk Post?? That's right, you libs need the government to do your work for you. Ask your senator to look it up for you. I GAVE YOU THE SOURCE!!! Search for an article titled "OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL".

I got this one for you, Act. Step 1 - Go to www.nypost.com
Step 2 - Search for 'obama tries to stall gis'
Step 3 - click on search result
Step 4 - read article.

Note: if you have trouble with step 4, let me know and I will try to help.

ACT 2, You have a malignant case of stupidity of the brain. Cast your republican vote and board the sinking ship. You will have many shipmates. Have you noticed that typically democrats are the wealthy, intelligent and educated. In other words, those to whom YOUR candidates will shelter. Unsurprisingly, this group includes your candidates and their cronies. Do you think those CEO's on Wall Street whom YOU will bail out have an income statement like yourself? Do you think that John McCain gives a rat's @@! about your miserable existence now or after Nov. 4th? Do you think he really cares about the failed economy? Heck no...he will ALWAYS have wealth. In HIS world, "the economy is strong". The one singleb statement of truth that he has made to date. Then there's the voting republicans like yourself...uneducated, stupid, unskilled, Tar Road inhabitants who will SINK with the ship. Think about how ingenious are the republican leaders. They use the poor, ignorant, and misguided human waste like yourself to keep themselves, the truly elite, at the helm. Then, they will thank you and voters like yourself, by allowing you to sink deeper into poverty while simutaneously monetarily rewarding themselves.

You will get EXACTLY what you deserve.... You better bring a life jacket...if you can afford it!

I am sorry for getting into your conversation, Act, but this guy is out of control. Down in Mississippi, they are complaining because they put the senate seat down low on the ballot and according to the liberals, this was done by republicans because republicans know that the this will help them due to the fact that the Democrats are typically less knowledgeable in these areas. How many times have the republicans been accused of cheating by taking advantage of the poor and uneducated by using Intelligence against them?

Why is it that John McCain is going to win this election when Obama sits and accuses him of only caring about the rich?

Why is it that Obama and his pasture have both found wealth by misleading the poor?

Why is it that Conservatives can back up what they are saying with facts and substance but the Libs just change the subject?

Anyone that honestly wants Obama to win is either ill informed or stupid. If you don't believe this, then go into any poor community and ask them who is the better candidate. Oh, you are probably one of those elites that won't stoop to that level. You people are so caught up in your self righteousness that you miss the point, time and time again. You preach saving the world but do you give up your cars and your AC? No. You Liberal Dems want everyone else to change but you are not willing to change anything about your own life.

You should also check your facts. Who gives more money to poor? Liberals or Conservatives? I think you would be surprised the difference and by how much.

Oh, I know. You will come back with some theory about how they only donate if it makes them money. Even if that were true, the ends still come out better than.

Less government control is what we need, not more. Obama wants to create jobs by making up special interest groups and unnecessary regulation. It is government regulation that is ruining this country and the economy and it is 95% dems that are doing this?

"Less government control is what we need, not more. Obama wants to create jobs by making up special interest groups and unnecessary regulation. It is government regulation that is ruining this country and the economy and it is 95% dems that are doing this? "

Your statement may be true to some extent, but historic facts do not lie, the last 3 Republican Presidents campaigned on "Less Government" and all 3 ended their terms (including GWB) with larger governments and record debt than when they started their presidency. Surprisingly enough it was Clinton that actually ended his term with "Less Government" and a balanced budget.

The matter of deregulation which was widely agreed by economists and McCain was brought about by the McCain backed Gramm/Leach/Bliley act of Deregulation that Clinton agrees he is also to blame because he agreed with McCain and signed it in to Law.

TBOS,

Thanks for, as you say, coming into an exchange. Your ramblings were both mindless and unsolicited. Again, cast your mindless vote and practice your breast stroke. Just to add, if John McCain wins the election, he will be awarded a 4 year opportunity of continued devastating policies for the average American people. Guess what you win.....a 4 year period of continued poverty, financial pain, and despair. I hope that you remain contented while on Skid Row!

"Why is it that Conservatives can back up what they are saying with facts and substance but the Libs just change the subject? "

Why is it that when actually faced with facts that Conservatives will divert the subject, or disappear altogether? As I have placed the FACTS in here and Act2 has gone to start his own thread of lies and no conservative has answered me?

Hmmmmmm

You are right. I am going to tuck tail and run away. Not because I don't have the facts. I just don't have the time. I have to get back to being a good father and taking care of what I have before your liberal government tells me I cannot have it anymore.

Your facts are as accurate as any other democratic argument and just as void of logic.

When I have time, I will come back but since that won't be until tomorrow, I will spare you the need to tell everyone how I too have run away in fear of an argument I cannot win since that is the stance you will take. The truth of the matter is, I don't live in my mom's basement and i have a job and a mortgage and a family to take care of.

Take care you super genius.

Took you an hour to think of that and then do exactly as I stated?

And I am a cattle rancher with a paid mortgage. I also employ several people. I supply the beef you are flipping at McDonald's

Jestjohn,

You sound like such an elitist!

Have you noticed that typically democrats are the wealthy, intelligent and educated.

If your statement were true, then Democrats make up 5% of the population?

Sorry! I don't buy it! This confirms the obvious, you have no credibility!

Grate 1 too,

You seem to have a meager degree of incite. I am an elitist and VERY proud of it. I will be as such after November 4. What squalid state will you retain? Credible you say...I find your stupidity ...incredible. Where did you find your pathetic statistics? On the back of a bubble gum wrapper?

Act2

simmons
Are you capable to search the New Youk Post?? That's right, you libs need the government to do your work for you. Ask your senator to look it up for you. I GAVE YOU THE SOURCE!!! Search for an article titled "OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS' IRAQ WITHDRAWAL".

It is called providing a link...

It's not worth my time to research your points if you want your statements to be considered as more than an opinion of a typical repub sheep you will provide a link...otherwise it will be filed with all the other opinions in my BS folder....

Re: SuperSaiyan "…tactical…..strategic…."

I thought the exchange last night about strategy vs. tactics was interesting. McCain wanted to "educate" Obama on the difference, but the example he used was flawed. The "surge" was a tactical adjustment that was initiated because the original "strategy" for the war was not working. The surge, itself, was NOT A STRAGEGY. Yet McCain said he wanted to employ the same strategy in Afghanistan that we used in Iraq. I wondered if McCain even understood the difference and what he was saying. I would hope that we don't approach Afghanistan with either the strategy or the tactics we used in Iraq. Whereas our military men and women have performed admirably, our political leadership has been abysmal.

Obama played rope-a-dope, Muhammad Ali's fighting style. Let McCain spend himself on wild round about swings, then KO in a later round.

I agree. I think Mccain clearly demonstrated he has much more experience and understanding of foreign affairs. Obama has zero experience and all he could do was defend himself they entire time. Now, Obama is the more eloquent speaker and even though he doesn't believe what he tells the lower and middle class it sounds like he actually cares.

Do you think we are ready to take on Iran?? Before you answer think of this..China has signed a HUGE oil and gas contract with Iran as a customer. Do you not think that somewhere in the back of that contract or in a seperat addendum or an implication that says : "If you go to war with the Untied States we will supply you with modern warfare technology from our country up to and possibly including nuclear technology"

If you think that Amadinijhad has just taken it upon himself to be this bold with their 1980's era jets (That reagan supplied them with) you are sadly mistaken. He is emboldened because in his back pocket he has agreemens from he Russians and The Chinese that he will be supplied if he needs it.

Now, we have 2 wars going on, Billions flying out he door, enemy's everywhere because of our own making, you want to make sure Obama can take on the Iranians?

From the way I see it, and granted this is an exadurated view, McCain would have no problem startsing another war that would probably plunge us in to WW3 except he would not survive long enough because of age and medical condition thereby leaving Sarah Palin to handle what mess he started. Even given he does NOT start a war, whatever he gets us in to and if he does not survive she sill will have to deal with it.

On the other hand, if Obama falls to the fate of some lunatic that still cannot fathom having a Black man in the White House, we do have Joe Biden to take up the slack. yes Biden has many times stepped on his own wagging tongue, but, he has enough respect from the rest of the world that they would not see him as our largest weakness.

We don't have to go to war with Iran to defeat Amadinijhad, the problem can be handled from within, with our help. Do I need to explain that logic?

Forget it Edward, Studiusbagus is an imbecile.

What country are you from?

Perhaps you are simply having trouble with your dosage. Have you been hallucinating long?

"horns, red eyes, and a forked tongue"????

You might need some professional help?