Get your facts straight!

Round 1 In Debates Goes to Obama, Poll Says
"Fifty-one percent of those polled thought Obama did the better job in Friday night's debate, while 38 percent said John McCain did better."

Source: CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/deb...poll/index.html

Oh yes, nobody better to judge the winner of the debate than the American public and its insanely high collective IQ! The same people who voted Bush in twice, great call!

Not to mention that I didn't vote in any poll... Did you? Polls are worth shit.

kisss my ass

Yeah, polls are pretty much a waste of time. I'd really like to hear from the Obama crowd some logical reasons to vote for him instead of McCain, because I haven't seen any.

Um, well, Obama doesn't masturbate over war. He favours trying to build bridges between us and our enemies, and working toward something regarding peace in that sense. McCain wants to jump into Iran, doesn't he?

I'm anti war, due to the deaths, the humungous expense that could be used elsewhere, the deaths, how it only BUILDS tensions everywhere and the deaths.

So for me, in that aspect, Obama > McCain.

Also, let's not forget, he's black. Instant points~!

Voting for Obama because he's against the war is like voting for McCain because ten years ago taxes were too high. I sincerely doubt McCain is in favor of invading Iran, but there's nothing wrong with supporting that if there is clear evidence that shows a threat, which there very well could be.

The one thing I hate about Obama supporters is they have completely bought into the "not more of the same" mantra of Obama's campaign. Bush is a raving lunatic who happens to be a Republican, but are all Republicans like Bush? Not even close. McCain is a smart guy with sound financial policies, and that's what our country needs.

Obama can talk about peace all he wants, and that's great, but it doesn't really do us any good seven years post-invasion and his economic policies will bury us. Considering we are on the verge of a serious depression, there is no reason that economic policy should not be the biggest factor in this election.

This post has been edited by Existentialist: Sep 30 2008, 2:04 am

Instant fail, Racism is terrible.

If by "the war", you mean the Iraq stuffs, then that's not specifically what I meant. I meant like war in general. For me, the idea of opening up communications with enemies (something McCain is against) could well build those bridges and prevent further confrontations.

In terms of "more of the same", I've not bought into that at all (not saying you were pointing that at me, as I don't think you were), what I've done is use what knowledge I have to make a decision. I think my lack of understanding of the current financial situation perhaps robs McCain of some kudos I may otherwise give to him.

I don't know. It's really funny, one person will SWEAR that Obama is THE answer and McCain will absolutely KILL the country, and then another person will say the exact opposite and they both really really mean it...

Also, is it ironic that McCain claims Obama is too inexperienced, but then he employs Palin as his running mate. She's younger than Obama and began governing her state AFTER Obama. That's a bit of irony, right?

The fact of the matter is that most US presidents are pro-war in the sense that they are willing to fight a battle they see fit. Bush is a total aberration in that respect as he was determined to fight a battle that served no purpose but to try to make money for select businesses. Even Clinton dropped more than a few bombs here and there.

As for the experience factor, this is where it gets hilarious. Do people actually think the president runs the country? Has it not been realized that he (or she) is pretty much just a public figure and that there is an army of advisers behind the scenes doing all the work? I don't care if Palin had never been involved in govt before. Any halfway smart person could run this country if they had the kind of resources the president has.

Let's steer it away from the bullshit about experience and war because both of those are either pretty irrelevant or hypothetical. How often have we ended up with a VP as president and how often has a president been unprepared? If Bush, with an IQ comparable to a retard can somehow pull off two terms, Palin will somehow be able to also. Why should we not vote for a guy because there is a chance he might be in favor of a future war? Let's debate about what's certain and what matters. To you being in the UK, none of this really matters to you. Your daily life is not affected in any way by what the US is doing!

Again, check your facts. Bush only one the popular vote once in his two runs. The electoral college voted him the first time.


McCain also claims Obama has never been a leader, when he himself has never held an executive position at any level. The have the same type of government experience, the only difference is the number of years.

This post has been edited by Hoodstock: Oct 1 2008, 3:07 pm

you might want to re-edit this last sentence as i am trying to follow your points but lost me with the contradictary nature of your conclusion.

Ha, yeah, what an idiot. There's no difference in experience, just in experience! As for checking my facts regarding the people voting in Bush twice, did Bush not win both elections? Did people not vote in those elections? I don't care who won the popular vote because the popular vote doesn't matter. If the people voted and Bush won, then the people voted in Bush. Still, I haven't read one decent argument for why Obama is better, just a bunch of cocksucking bullshit that doesn't even make sense. No wonder the people who rig elections don't have a problem doing it.

Well, Every newspaper says Obama has at least a 7 point lead on McCain and after the bright debate lights hit Palin she is going to look like Dan Quayle. It's not going to help McCain at all... He should have picked someone else.