Saddleback forum with McCain and Obama

Rhetoric.

No..thats not rhetoric. Its just simple truth. You playing with words to tried and hide the facts are simply pathetic. If you say 'anytime, anywhere' then it should mean 'anytime, anywhere'. If it doesnt then dont say it.

Nader represents an entirely different left from Obama. And he has his views.

So what?

That doesn't change the fact that McCain is a crazed liar, flip flopper and a warmongerer.

So Obama got his ass owned by a crazed liar, flip flopper and a warmonger. Does that make you somehow feel better? I dont see how.

Or is actually being able to admit Obama got beat 'above your pay grade'?
 
Funny, John McCain doesn't strike me as at all religious. If I were a religious person looking to be invigorated by the incorporation of Christ into worldview, McCain would be a snoozefest.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for McCain to wow me with some intelligent nuance. Is it too much to ask to get a presidential candidate whose eloquent grasp of intricacy defeats the pander-to-the-lowest-common-denominator type brute force politics?
 
No..thats no rhetoric.

Hmm. Let me think. yes it is.

So Obama got his ass owned by a crazed liar, flip flopper and a warmonger. Does that make you somehow feel better? I dont see how.

No, knowing that McCain is a cheap liar, a fraud, a reckless warmonger, makes me feel worse.

Also, he pretty much cheated. He deviated from the format and he didn't really answer the questions that were given to him. The interviewer had to ask them several times in different forms.

Obama advocated humility before the worlds evils and ills, McCain advocated, what to me appeared, simple minded war mentality, which would probably bring just more problems.
 
No, knowing that McCain is a cheap liar, a fraud, a reckless warmonger, makes me feel worse.

Also, he pretty much cheated. He deviated from the format and he didn't really answer the questions that were given to him. The interviewer had to ask them several times in different forms.

Obama advocated humility before the worlds evils and ills, McCain advocated, what to me appeared, simple minded war mentality, which would probably bring just more problems.

Oh...so you claim he 'cheated' as well. :rolleyes:

How lame can someone actually get? Listen up, the rules were explained exactly the same to both candidates. The same questions were given to each of them.

Their style was their own choosing.

McCain absolutely answered the questions asked of him. He gave no obtuse 'above my pay grade' kind of answers. He actually did seem to embody the 'straight talk express'. Obama had a much harder time with it, but thats no surprise as Obama has been observed to have a hard time in debates before. And this is why neutral parties like Ralph Nader who doesnt like either of them says Obama got owned. Its because he did get owned.

Your plea that McCain somehow cheated sounds more like a kid who got beat at his favorite game and cant accept the fact....thus the comment of 'my opponent had to be cheating' arises.

That is just El Lame-O. Good lord, get some self-respect and at least give McCain some credit for actually doing well at the event. At least it would make you look more mature.
 
How lame can someone actually get? Listen up,

No, listen up, the debate format was supposed to be conversational. McCain gave stump speeches and he didn't properly answer the questions. The interviewer had to rephrase the questions several times.

McCain absolutely answered the questions asked of him.

No he didn't.

He gave no obtuse 'above my pay grade' kind of answers. He actually did seem to embody the 'straight talk express'.

Except that he's a liar and a double faced flip flopper. Much more so that Obama. Just because he's bold in lying and warmongering doesn't mean he's any better.

Also he lied about his exprience in Vietnam and plagiarized "the cross in the sand" story from Solzhenitsyn who he admires. It's sort of like Hillary's "sniper fire" experience, except much more shameless.
 
Yes, what about his extraordinary lies, crazed neocon fundamentalism, mounting flip-flops, simplistic thinking, no understanding of the economy... and so forth. These can be ignored of course, by people like this reviewer.

When you talk about mounting flip-flops, you do realize that Obama admitted to them in the beginning of the forum right?

13 Q LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY: A LOT OF TIMES

14 CANDIDATES ARE ACCUSED OF FLIP FLOPPING, BUT ACTUALLY

15 SOMETIMES FLIPI FLOPPING IS SMART BECAUSE YOU HAVE DECIDED

16 A BETTER POSITION BASED ON KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE?

17 A RIGHT.

18 Q WHAT'S THE MOST SIGNIFICANT POSITION YOU HELD TEN

19 YEARS AGO THAT YOU NO LONGER HOLD TODAY, THAT YOU FLIPPED

20 ON, YOU CHANGED ON BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY SEE IT

21 DIFFERENTLY?

22 A BECAUSE I ACTUALLY CHANGED MY MIND.

23 Q YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND, EXACTLY?

24 A YOU KNOW I'M TRYING TO THINK BACK TEN YEARS AGO.

25 I THINK THAT A GOOD EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE ISSUE OF WELFARE


7





1 REFORM WHERE I ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT WELFARE HAD TO BE

2 CHANGED.

This is a direct cut and paste of the transcript. You cannot use flip-flopping against McCain when Obama admits to flip-flopping himself. McCain supports cannot use it against Obama anymore either (yes, I've used it against him)
 
You cannot use flip-flopping against McCain when Obama admits to flip-flopping himself. McCain supports cannot use it against Obama anymore either
I'm with you in hoping both sides won't. It is a very ******ed kind of criticism. And it's counter productive. It stops both politicians from improving their program for fear of being called a flip-flopper. When the change is prompted by sound argumentation, there is no reason for critique. When it's merely to gain votes, It's allready called "pandering".
 
You cannot use flip-flopping against McCain when Obama admits to flip-flopping himself.

Yes I can.

This is not an issue of adopting better positions at the face of evidence. Rather, McCain has taken worse positions despite the evidence, he moved closer to Bush when the people moved away from him, and he has demostrated incredible lack of judgement. He has failed to maintain any semblence of consistency, or consistent values, whereas Obama has despite the occasional flip-flops
 
No, listen up, the debate format was supposed to be conversational. McCain gave stump speeches and he didn't properly answer the questions. The interviewer had to rephrase the questions several times.

Rhetoric. :p Maybe thats how McCain conducts his conversations?

No he didn't.

Then everyone but you managed to hear answers. Your so special.

Except that he's a liar and a double faced flip flopper. Much more so that Obama. Just because he's bold in lying and warmongering doesn't mean he's any better.

We need bold leaders.

Also he lied about his exprience in Vietnam and plagiarized "the cross in the sand" story from Solzhenitsyn who he admires. It's sort of like Hillary's "sniper fire" experience, except much more shameless.

Really. And you know this for a fact? You were in that little grass hut with him in Vietnam? I had no idea.

Dude, do yourself a favor and get over it. Obama got whacked. Everyone but guys like you actually noticed this. Wake up. Smell reality. Might do you some good.
 
What's the word I'm looking for? What would describe this worshippish behaviour best? Hmm.

McCainite? McCainiac? Hmm, I like that one. Yep, McCainiac it is. :)
 
No, listen up, the debate format was supposed to be conversational. McCain gave stump speeches and he didn't properly answer the questions. The interviewer had to rephrase the questions several times. - Princeps

WTF are you talking about? McCain didn't properly answer the questions? Now, I hate John McCain, but John McCain said what needed to be said. That's it. He didn't need to say anything more. It wasn't supposed to be conversational, and often times McCain elaborated on his "stump speeches."

Also he lied about his exprience in Vietnam and plagiarized "the cross in the sand" story from Solzhenitsyn who he admires. It's sort of like Hillary's "sniper fire" experience, except much more shameless. - Princeps

Pure conjecture. There is now evidence that McCain was talking about this incident long ago. Secondly, this anecdote does not even appear in Gulag Archipelago. Solzhenitsyn spoke of this incident in the early nineties. The left wing blogs have really been back peddling on this one. Now the stance is, "this is probably something that happened to neither of these guys, it's just a feel good story!"

Rather, McCain has taken worse positions despite the evidence, he moved closer to Bush when the people moved away from him, and he has demostrated incredible lack of judgement. He has failed to maintain any semblence of consistency, or consistent values, whereas Obama has despite the occasional flip-flops. - Princeps

This is an interesting exchange right here. What's more important, molding ones self to meet the views of the American public? Or standing by ones own guns? Obama has probably been the more dangerous flip-flopper when it comes to the war. Sure, he was against the war from the start, but when we had lost 1000 men, Obama believed in staying the course. He used such famous rhetorical lines as, "We need to finish the job for our brave soldiers so that they may not be lost in vain," and "We broke it, it's our job to fix it." Funny though, as the popularity of the war dwindled, Obama's tone changed into the anti-war, pro-withdrawal line. He even penned legislation to get us out of Iraq before the primary season was to really heat up. Ya know, so he wouldn't have to deal with it as president himself. He was anti-surge, advocated withdrawal through the primary contests, and was totally wrong on all counts. Obama was playing politics with a war.

In all honesty, it's a pretty big bullet to bite when you can't realize your candidate is more dangerous when it comes to war policy, and will act irrationally out of the whims of the general public as opposed to doing what is right when it comes to war.

What is the problem with McCain cozying up with Bush on the war? Bush was right. McCain was right. These guys didn't suddenly have epiphanies after they won the primary contest. These guys didn't go back and edit their webpage, and reconstruct their entire Iraq war plans. Bush and McCain stuck their guns. Bush and McCain ignored the fickle will of the people and pushed the surge through. And they were right.

Your guy has sat upon podiums and said that this election is about "judgement." But he's totally f---ed himself, because a chimpanzee can see that Obamas judgements in regards to this war have been fueled by nothing more than popular opinion. And now that the rubber has met the road, Obama doesn't have the guts to either go through with his original plans, or admit that he was totally wrong on the surge.

Obama is a total rank amateur. And he's showing time, after time, after time.

The great uniter is down by 5 points to John McCain. I say again, the great uniter, black Jebus, is down to 5 points to JOHN MCCAIN! My half aunts ex-husband's best friend's half ******ed cousin could do better against John McCain.
 
Here's today's edition of "Simple Answers to Simple Questions:"

Is it too much to ask to get a presidential candidate whose eloquent grasp of intricacy defeats the pander-to-the-lowest-common-denominator type brute force politics?

Yes.

That has been today's edition of "Simple Answers to Simple Questions."

Cleo
 
I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread about it. Am I the only one who watched it?

Two clowns had a conference with a charlatan, what was there to see?
 
Both candidates shifted to the right at Saddleback. Not necessarly good long-term for McCain as that means he was shifting away from the moderates while Obama was shifting towards them.
 
What's the word I'm looking for? What would describe this worshippish behaviour best? Hmm.

McCainite? McCainiac? Hmm, I like that one. Yep, McCainiac it is. :)

So Ralph Nader is a 'McCainiac'? Right. :rolleyes:
 
It wasn't supposed to be conversational,

Yes, that was the plan.

Pure conjecture. There is now evidence that McCain was talking about this incident long ago. Secondly, this anecdote does not even appear in Gulag Archipelago. Solzhenitsyn spoke of this incident in the early nineties. The left wing blogs have really been back peddling on this one. Now the stance is, "this is probably something that happened to neither of these guys, it's just a feel good story!"

He never mentions that story in his extensive report about his captivity and he has praised Solzhenitsyn before. Solzhenitsyn had an almost exactly similar story in his book.

Also, it turns out that first people to call him out on this weren' some "left wing blogs", but McCain's right wing buddies at the FreeRepublic back in 2005.

Obama has probably been the more dangerous flip-flopper when it comes to the war.

No, Obama's views, while admittely they've changed some, haven't changed radically.

Sure, he was against the war from the start, but when we had lost 1000 men, Obama believed in staying the course. He used such famous rhetorical lines as, "We need to finish the job for our brave soldiers so that they may not be lost in vain," and "We broke it, it's our job to fix it." Funny though, as the popularity of the war dwindled, Obama's tone changed into the anti-war, pro-withdrawal line.

Yeah, McCain, on the other hand, constantly told that this war would be an easy and quick operation. He said so constantly. But when the war ran into quicksand, he changed his position, saying, something along the lines that "i never said this would be an easy war, and I'm sorry if any voted for it under that impression."

In all honesty, it's a pretty big bullet to bite when you can't realize your candidate is more dangerous when it comes to war policy,

No, again McCain is a zelous warmongerer who says that the US should "defeat" evil. Just like that. "defeat" the evil.

Obama shows humility before the world's ills and problems. McCain wants to bomb the world's ills and problems.

and will act irrationally out of the whims of the general public as opposed to doing what is right when it comes to war.

So he would, you claim, act like a democratically elected leader who'd listen to popular opinion. That would be a good change.

Bush was right.

Now you're just desperate. Bush lied Americans into a war. It's proven conclusively.

And Iraq posed no threat.

And demolishing a country and its economy worse than the Mongols is not a justified war.

And blah blah, Rest of your post is just your usual acid piffle.
 
As a guy who was president of the debate club/team in highschool and not as a conservative for which my credentials are quite lacking... I'm only conservative on the internet, IRL I'm moderate (+2.5, -2.5... as anti-social authoritarian as anti-economic authoritarian), I can say:


McCain made Obama look like a child.

ps. There was one debate when Obama kicked Hillary's ass. There is a thread about it with details.
 
Now you're just desperate. Bush lied Americans into a war. It's proven conclusively.

And here is where logic and reason go out the door and the spirit of Cindy Sheehan possess someones body and mind. Yahoo.

Please note the comment earlier in the tread where the caveat was given 'except to the worst of the conspriacy theorist crowd'. Congrats, you win a cookie.
 
Please note the comment earlier in the tread where the caveat was given 'except to the worst of the conspriacy theorist crowd'. Congrats, you win a cookie.

The last poll I can find is from February of 2008, but at that point, a solid majority of Americans were part of the "worst of the conspiracy theory crowd." I hope you have a lot of cookies. :)

Cleo
 
Top Bottom