First real debate: McCain "shines", Obama underwhelms

[fionnmccool]

McCain referred to the Czech Republic as Czechoslovakia.
He claims to be absolutely technologically illiterate, and yet information in his speeches have a weird parallel with wikipedia articles.

Is this the kind of ignorant man we want in the White House with his finger on the button?

Do any of them write their own speeches when they must have teams of campaign strategists and vested interests behind them ? I heard for example that John Cleese offered to help the Obama campaign write speeches.

[youngdan]

There appears to be only 2 prominent supporters of McCain here FT and DR. I question their sanity. Had McCain already been present I would be dead by now. He says we are all Georgians now. If I visited McCain in a nursing home and he was raving like this I would just hope for a peacefull passing. This senile bollix wants Georgia as part of Nato and it would have if he was president. Does anyone not think that the Georgian clown would not have a bigger set of sliothars then. The war would be over by now.

This nasty ignorant adulterous stupid bully is the greatest threat to humanity since the rats that spread the Black Plague.

So YoungNed I will settle for the biggest fruitcake ever in Obama

[Nagy]

There appears to be only 2 prominent supporters of McCain here FT and DR. I question their sanity. Had McCain already been present I would be dead by now. He says we are all Georgians now. If I visited McCain in a nursing home and he was raving like this I would just hope for a peacefull passing. This senile bollix wants Georgia as part of Nato and it would have if he was president. Does anyone not think that the Georgian clown would not have a bigger set of sliothars then. The war would be over by now.

This nasty ignorant adulterous stupid bully is the greatest threat to humanity since the rats that spread the Black Plague.

So YoungNed I will settle for the biggest fruitcake ever in Obama

Pity the Vietnamese released him.

[petey]

yes you are. see my edit.

That's just plain silly. You ask if I'm joking, I say I'm not, then you point to an edit.

that's because we cross-posted. no need for the attitude.

Anyway, to address your edit:

Isn't a pro-life stance part of the Republican party? Does that mean Guiliani is not a Republican? Does that mean that Tom Ridge is a democrat? Governors and mayors always bend to the stance of their constituency; that doesn't speak to the larger point, and is a little disingenuous.

to say that an anti-abortion stance is "part of the republican party" is a solecism. perhaps you meant "part of the republican platform." so i went to the rnc website, and the 2008 platform is only available to those who sign up for an account. a further search (you're welcome for the fact that i did your homework for you) leads me to this from the 2004 platform:

We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2004 ... ortion.htm
they further say that they "support a human life amendment to the Constitution." however

A Human Life Amendment IS a constitutional amendment that legally recognizes unborn children as persons and thus being a person having legal protection against murder. A Human Life Amendment IS NOT a 'ban' on abortion (a 'medical procedure' as the courts view it).

http://www.humanlifeamendment.info/

talking right but staying put is the successful GOP strategy, as many an anti-abortion activist has discovered to his/her frustration for the last generation. they know it's disingenuous.

Bush is and was weird. His whole presidency was basically an experiment to cement Republican power. Most conservatives and republicans I know are deeply distressed about what he's done to the core ideals of their party.

i used to think that too; in fact it's why i left the party (and will be voting for barr). but then i think of mckinley, and TR, and reagan, and indeed of lincoln, and i come to realize that centralization of power, expansion of the executive, and foreign adventurism has always been the GOP way.

The log cabiners are basically economic Republicans. And in fact, beyond the fact that they're gay, I dont'know anything about them. They may even be socially conservative (aside from being gay) for all I know. The fact that they're trying to change the party from the inside does not mean that their positions are the positions of the party.

I shouldn't have to explain this stuff.

you do have to explain that you understand it, tho'.

When the Republicans got in bed with the evangelicals they made the decision to go the religious intolernace route. Obama talks about God so they don't to him what they did to Kerry. It's all posturing.

no, obama really is a committed christian. even a bush supporter has discovered this:

The forthcoming volume from Stephen Mansfield, whose sympathetic "The Faith of George W. Bush" spent 15 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list in 2004, is titled "The Faith of Barack Obama." Its tone ranges from gently critical to gushing, and the author defends Obama-and even his controversial former minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright-from conservative critics, and portrays him as a compelling figure for Christian voters.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200806 ... tico/11099
is it impossible for a politician to be a christian? or do only democrats "posture"?

[petey]

sorry, dp