[Big Mac]

I don't like the direction of the polls. I still believe that BHO will go down to defeat, but if he should win then the country really deserves to go down the tubes with him. Painful to say but true.

[Ghoser777]

I'm sure the same thing was said with the impending Clinton election in 91. America has survived bad presidents before, so if Obama turns out to be a stinker I believe we'll be fine. There's a reason that we have a balance of powers - the judiciary and the slow as molasses Congress can hedge against the president (this is where conservatives might be reconsidering the prudence of expanding the powers of the president under George Bush...).

[SpaceMonkey]

The visceral distaste for Obama among some conservatives really is fascinating. He's not even a Clinton!

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Ghoser777 

I'm sure the same thing was said with the impending Clinton election in 91. America has survived bad presidents before, so if Obama turns out to be a stinker I believe we'll be fine. There's a reason that we have a balance of powers - the judiciary and the slow as molasses Congress can hedge against the president (this is where conservatives might be reconsidering the prudence of expanding the powers of the president under George Bush...).

There would be no check by Congress if BHO were to win.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The visceral distaste for Obama among some conservatives really is fascinating. He's not even a Clinton!

He is worse, from an ideological standpoint. But he's also less electable than Hillary, which is a positive aspect of his candidacy.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

There would be no check by Congress if BHO were to win.

Only for two years most likely. There's no way that they can maintain a majority after two years of amateur liberalism.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't like the direction of the polls. I still believe that BHO will go down to defeat, but if he should win then the country really deserves to go down the tubes with him. Painful to say but true.

Can you honestly say the country would fair any better with the alternative?

I would rather not vote for either of them. However, since we really only have "two parties", my choice is limited. This pisses me off quite a bit.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Only for two years most likely. There's no way that they can maintain a majority after two years of amateur liberalism.

Of course there is no other political party in the way.

Seriously, get off the partisan one party bull ****. Neither Democrats or Republicans have been completely right about anything. Having a difference of opinion is a good thing, but basing it on a political party is what kills this nation.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Of course there is no other political party in the way.

Seriously, get off the partisan one party bull ****. Neither Democrats or Republicans have been completely right about anything. Having a difference of opinion is a good thing, but basing it on a political party is what kills this nation.

I wasn't being partisan, especially since my party wasn't in the conversation. The fact is that Barack Obama IS a partisan…at least that's what his record shows. The fact is that Nancy Pelosi IS very partisan, as well as Harry Reid. Also, it is a fact that the voters haven't tolerated a Democrat executive and legislative branch for more than four years in a row, for more than four decades.

It is not a stretch to say that Obama and the Democratic party leadership are all fairly liberal. It is also not a stretch so say that the majority of the voters in this country are not liberals and it is my opinion that the liberal agenda that this combination of Democrats will give us will turn them off rather quickly.

I have said repeatedly that I believe that our government has been more effective when there are opposing parties in control. This IS a generalization of course and I think that this particular congress is as useless as tits on a boar and this President is at best a wildly unpopular lame-duck. I don't expect anything of value out of them.

[OreoCookie]

Of course there are still checks and balances should Obama be elected president. For six years with all an Repbublican top (Congress, Presidency, Supreme Court), checks and balances have worked (with some delay, at least).

Also, if a `liberals' have a majority in Congress, then the majority of Americans have indeed voted for them and, in that sense, the majority of Americans is `liberal.' (I use quotes, because I think it's naïve to equate Republicans with conservatives and Democrats with liberals.)

[Big Mac]

Anyone notice Obama's fixation on China? He talks about us using the Chinese credit cards, how much China has invested in its infrastructure and how they had a space walk. Perhaps he should be running in China because he sounds envious of that country. On second thought, China likes the market now so he'd probably be too left-wing in practice for even a putatively communist country.

Yes, I really dislike Barrack Hussein Obama, and I'll be getting increasingly vitriolic as the campaigns cross the finish line.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Anyone notice Obama's fixation on China? He talks about us using the Chinese credit cards, how much China has invested in its infrastructure and how they had a space walk. Perhaps he should be running in China because he sounds envious of that country. On second thought, China likes the market now so he'd probably be too left-wing in practice for even a putatively communist country.

Yes, I really dislike Barrack Hussein Obama, and I'll be getting increasingly vitriolic as the campaigns cross the finish line.

I've noticed a general US fixation on China.

[KeyLimePi]

i was anxious to see this debate because Obama is such a great speaker and McCain can get be befuddled easily. But I was a little surprised. McCain did better than I thought he would. Still had some of the grumpy ol' man thing sometimes, but then Obama never really delivered any memorable soundbites. Overall, not too enlightening.

Based on the lukewarm response, I suspect both camps will now prompt their candidates to really come out swinging in the next debate. We'll have to see.

[Kerrigan]

The next two debates are going to be the most interesting. McCain will have to link the Democrats' unpopular bailout package to Obama and put him into a defensive position on the economy. If he doesn't do this, then he will have no chance of overcoming Obama in November.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I've noticed a general US fixation on China.

I've noticed a general fixation on Obama's middle name.

Look at Palin. Does McCain have the judgement to be president? I don't think so.

Regarding the debate, I didn't watch the first part (on the economy?). In the latter part, Obama held his own against McCain, which I guess is good considering his lack of experience. McCain's answer to the question on Georgia was really bad. This guy got our troops into Iraq and now he wants to threaten war with Russia? But otherwise, I was quite happy with them both. McCain's attempts to attack Obama fell completely flat, since he was often just arguing semantics. "Preconditions" versus "preparations"---McCain may think we care terribly about the difference but we don't.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by tie 

I've noticed a general fixation on Obama's middle name.

Fixation? No, that's a strawman.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

McCain will have to link the Democrats' unpopular bailout package to Obama and put him into a defensive position on the economy.

The Democrats had a bailout package as well? Was it as much as Bush/Paulson's $700B package?

[SDW2001]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

When speaking directly to McCain, how do you think Obama *should* have addressed him?

1. Senator McCain
2. My opponent
3. The Senator
4. My friend John McCain


Any choice would be good. I'm really surprised at the number of people who don't take issue with this, and the number who ignored Obama's demeanor.

[Kerrigan]

Yes, from what I've read their proposition involves government buying the debt, while the house Republicans are pushing for extending loans to cover it. Spending and lending are quite different. Of course, Bush is eager for to sign the bill regardless of what form it comes in.

[besson3c]

Yeah, the last thing we'd want is Obama visiting Russia and calling their leader "Vlad"

[Kerrigan]

I thought it was odd that Obama wouldn't address him as senator, and I'm not sure what the reasoning is behind it. My guess is that it is owing to the informality of the debate structure, and Obama wanting to appear on a first name basis with a senior politician. I don't think it was attempted to be subversive or disrespectful.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

1. Senator McCain
2. My opponent
3. The Senator
4. My friend John McCain


Any choice would be good. I'm really surprised at the number of people who don't take issue with this, and the number who ignored Obama's demeanor.

Those would be used when referring to someone, not for addressing them directly.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Yes, from what I've read their proposition involves government buying the debt, while the house Republicans are pushing for extending loans to cover it. Spending and lending are quite different. Of course, Bush is eager for to sign the bill regardless of what form it comes in.

Given how loans and government works, would buying the debt be more likely to yield a return for taxpayers than a loan?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Those would be used when referring to someone, not for addressing them directly.

Uh huh. So when you see your doctor for a checkup, whose name is Dr. Adam Jones, you don't call him Dr. Jones? You call him Adam? I don't think you'd claim that. Congressmen are given the same type of respect by fellow politicians and members of the media.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Did anyone notice that Obama made a habit of phrasing things as "when I'm president," or "As president, I will" while McCain never did (or maybe he did while I wasn't watching)? If you did, what did you think about it?

[Kerrigan]

I've no clue how this stuff works. All I know from my recollection of econ is that the process of issuing a loan, from a bank's standpoint, involves creating money that literally did not exist before. The new loan, $$ which did not exist previously, is entered as an asset, and the checkable deposits are put down on the fed's balance sheet as a liability.

So knowing this, I think the distinction between making the loan and buying the existing loans is that buying it involves exchanging actual money (checkable deposits) for the "toxic paper". Fed writes a check (as it were) to an unstable bank, the bank in exchange hands over the toxic paper, and the fed deals with restructuring and collecting the payments designated in the toxic paper.

A loan, on the other hand, involves the fed simultaneously creating $700bn in total checkable deposits (liability), and $700bn in future money it will eventually recollect as part of the agreement (asset). So there is $700bn more in the financial market to free up banks to restructure bad debt and eventually pay back Uncle Sam.

So I guess the main distinction is the "lending" scenario frees up credit by giving the banks a little extra money to work with that they eventually have to repay, and does not involve tax payer dollars buying toxic paper. The "spending" scenario involves taking money that already exists and has been collected in the form of taxes, and using to buy toxic paper. The $700 spent will have to be supplemented by the US government issuing more bonds (read: borrowing) to buyers such as China.

I don't know which is better, just that the "spending" scenario favored by most Democrats as well as Bush/Paulson is unpopular with voters by a 2:1 margin. The lending scenario seems more logical to me but it does carry with it the risk of inflation, since as economists know a single loan of, say, $100,000 will in the course of its movement through the economy generate tens or even hundreds of millions of new dollars in the "M1" money supply. Naturally a trillion dollar loan will cause at least some noticeable inflation, by my guess. But is this any worse than borrowing a trillion in new debt from China and other parties?

Edit: I've read that even Newt Gingrich, champion of the balanced budget, would vote for the resolution to "spend", so I think the GOP lending version of the bill is not going to be passed at all.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Uh huh. So when you see your doctor for a checkup, whose name is Dr. Adam Jones, you don't call him Dr. Jones? You call him Adam? I don't think you'd claim that. Congressmen are given the same type of respect by fellow politicians and members of the media.

Of course. I'm just saying that none of those proposed above would be appropriate for a direct address. I could see Mr. McCain or Senator for addressing someone directly, but that's about it.

As for the doctor question, I actually *do* address my doctor by his first name. I've only ever met one person with the title 'doctor' who was so stuck up that he insisted everyone call him doctor (he was a law prof.).

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Of course. I'm just saying that none of those proposed above would be appropriate for a direct address.

Senator McCain is appropriate.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Senator McCain is appropriate.

I suppose it is. When I first read it, it was in the context of the other indirect references.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Fixation? No, that's a strawman.

Sorry, I was referring to Big Mac. He thinks that Obama is secretly a Muslim, and to point this out he uses Obama's middle name all the time. Since it is both utterly insane and quite funny, I like to point it out all the time. It is sometimes good to know when you are arguing with someone who should be institutionalized.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

My view: B.H.O. is most likely still a Muslim at heart, although he decided years back that his presidential aspirations would only make sense to the world if he could claim a Christian identity.

link

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by tie 

Sorry, I was referring to Big Mac. He thinks that Obama is secretly a Muslim, and to point this out he uses Obama's middle name all the time. Since it is both utterly insane and quite funny, I like to point it out all the time. It is sometimes good to know when you are arguing with someone who should be institutionalized.


link

Sorry, I should have said that I think the fixation on Obama's middle name is really more of a strawman. It's easier to attack an Arabic middle-name than it is to criticize the holder of that name.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by tie 

Sorry, I was referring to Big Mac. He thinks that Obama is secretly a Muslim, and to point this out he uses Obama's middle name all the time.

That's his name and I choose to use it. You're the one who apparently has a problem with it, otherwise why would you object to people using it? Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama.

[CharlesS]

Hmm, I don't like that name McCain. Makes me think of a guy who killed his brother... and an unhealthy fast food chain.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Hmm, I don't like that name McCain. Makes me think of a guy who killed his brother... and an unhealthy fast food chain.

Bit of a stretch there, Charles.

[besson3c]

Big Mac: would your face turn red if I said that McCain sucks the big one?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Senator McCain is appropriate.

Did you object when he called the moderator "Jim?" Did you even notice?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Bit of a stretch there, Charles.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Did you object when he called the moderator "Jim?" Did you even notice?

I did, and I think that's acceptable. But when your opponent is calling you by your title, Senator, don't you think you should return the formality? This particular issue is of little substance, but it doesn't help Obama among those who think of him as arrogant.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Big Mac: would your face turn red if I said that McCain sucks the big one?

No, it wouldn't surprise me or phase me. You're entitled to that view, and you're private citizen who doesn't have to show courtesy to any politician.

[hyteckit]

Wow, conservatives and Republicans are getting so lame.

How many made up outrages can they come up with?

Obama called John McCain, "John". Oh, what an outrage.

Obama called Palin a Pig. Oh, what an outrage.

Oprah won't have Palin as a guest. Oh, what an outrage. Oprah is Reverse Racist™.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I did, and I think that's acceptable. But when your opponent is calling you by your title, Senator, don't you think you should return the formality? This particular issue is of little substance, but it doesn't help Obama among those who think of him as arrogant.

This whole complaint is stupid. In the military, I call everyone else by their rank, unless we are of the same rank. Then it's first names. Two senators referring to each other as "senator" is ridiculous.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This whole complaint is stupid. In the military, I call everyone else by their rank, unless we are of the same rank. Then it's first names. Two senators referring to each other as "senator" is ridiculous.

Exactly. What's wrong with two senators calling each other by their first name. That's what they are accustom to when talking to each other. They are both senators.

It's not like McCain is the President.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This whole complaint is stupid. In the military, I call everyone else by their rank, unless we are of the same rank. Then it's first names. Two senators referring to each other as "senator" is ridiculous.

That's the way it's done in the Senate, at least in formal situations.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's his name and I choose to use it. You're the one who apparently has a problem with it, otherwise why would you object to people using it? Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama. Barack Hussein Obama.

If that's your attitude, then why are you complaining about how one senator addresses a colleague? I certainly don't ask my colleagues to call me doctor even if it is my title. Call him what you like. It is your mindless assertion that Obama is a secret Muslim that bothers me.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I'm really surprised at the number of people who don't take issue with this, and the number who ignored Obama's demeanor.

It might have something to do with the debate format, in which Jim Lehrer played marriage counselor and encouraged the candidates to talk directly to one another about their feelings.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I did, and I think that's acceptable. But when your opponent is calling you by your title, Senator, don't you think you should return the formality?

As I recall, Jim Lehrer always called Obama "senator," so you think that failing to return the formality is ok for one guy but NOT ok for the other guy in the same room? It really sounds like you were looking for some way to get offended, and this was the best you could come up with. Do you have any evidence that JSM3 himself was put off by this phenomenon in any way, or that he even noticed?

[besson3c]

It's amusing that several people here will rant and rave about the liberal PC movement, yet their conservative horse being called a pig or not being addressed formally gives them a case of the vapors!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's amusing that several people here will rant and rave about the liberal PC movement, yet their conservative horse being called a pig or not being addressed formally gives them a case of the vapors!

It's hilarious. But don't forget, you have your own pot-and-kettle moments, like when you complain about partisanship and then make some of the most partisan comments of all. I'll point them out next time so you can have a good laugh at yourself. Oh also, "rave" means they like it (I don't think that's what you meant to say).

[besson3c]

I'm well aware of my doing this, but I've pretty much given up on changing the tone around here. I guess "bash everybody over the head with loud and poorly constructed arguments" is just sort of the name of the game on the internet, or at least it has won here.

I might as well join in the fun.

Did you guys hear that McCain said "horseshit" during the debate?

http://news.spreadit.org/mccain-hors...during-debate/

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

http://news.spreadit.org/mccain-hors...during-debate/

That's hilarious. Now I think I might call the debate for McCain

To view the video you'll have to manually type in the the 4 letter word where MacNN forums have turned them into ****

[Uncle Skeleton]

Not only that, but did you hear what Obama referred to JSM as?

Senator whom?

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This whole complaint is stupid. In the military, I call everyone else by their rank, unless we are of the same rank. Then it's first names. Two senators referring to each other as "senator" is ridiculous.

TITCR.

Now, being that McCain was addressing his opponent as senator suggests that Obama perhaps should have reciprocated. But the whole thing is a non issue.