Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 316 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s October 01 - 11:26pm EDT 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / Off Topic /
 

  Presidential Debate 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, 4
Gerritt Oct 08, 2008, 09:19pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Presidential Debate
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that put forth the concept that solicitors/lawers should not be qualified for national office due to a conflict of interest.

Insofar as the negativity, we are talking about the last 8 years or so. And the office we are talking about has been Republican, at least in name. So it is to Obama's advantage to point out the Republican failures, though others have pointed out some major issues with the Democratic Party over the last 2 years, and prior to this particular cycle as relates to the issues that are critical right now.
The present issues with the middle east to include Afghanastan, and Iran, and to a certain degree even Iraq, can be traced back to the Carter administration.
The FM (fanny may or freddy mack) issues can be traced back to the Clinton Administration. The issue here is that a Republican administration that had a majority in congress for 6 years did nothing to change it.

FordGT, you mentioned earlier that Obama was disrespectfull towards McCain by using his first name. In this debate he did not do that, but McCain was even worse in this one by reffering to Obama as "that one".

I think the winner of this one was Obama, merely because McCain needed a big win to close the gap, but didn't do it. If you look at Fact Checker, both had bad information, but McCain was further off the mark than Obama.

Ad Astra Per Aspera
(A rough road leads to the Stars)
We all know what we know, and everyone else knows we are wrong.
System Specifications in BIO
Want to enjoy less advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
FordGT90Concept Oct 08, 2008, 10:38pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Presidential Debate
Gerritt said:
FordGT, you mentioned earlier that Obama was disrespectfull towards McCain by using his first name. In this debate he did not do that, but McCain was even worse in this one by reffering to Obama as "that one".

Obama addressed McCain as John once in this debate. Yes, it was a vast improvement over his last debate performance.

Obama:
I'm just trying to keep up with John.


Obama and McCain used "that one" once...

Obama:
But I think it's important to understand, we're not going to solve Social Security and Medicare unless we understand the rest of our tax policies. And you know, Sen. McCain, I think the "Straight Talk Express" lost a wheel on that one.

So let's be clear about my tax plan and Sen. McCain's, because we're not going to be able to deal with entitlements unless we understand the revenues coming in. I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans, 95 percent.


McCain:
By the way, my friends, I know you grow a little weary with this back-and-forth. It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney.

You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me. I have fought time after time against these pork barrel -- these bills that come to the floor and they have all kinds of goodies and all kinds of things in them for everybody and they buy off the votes.

They were said in that order, in very close proximity. Had Obama not said "that one," I doubt McCain would have.

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
Gerritt Oct 08, 2008, 11:15pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Presidential Debate
The reference to "that one" by Obama was an instance.
The reference to "that one" by McCain was to his fellow Senator.
I don't think they are on the same level of disrespect.
Just my opinion.

Ad Astra Per Aspera
(A rough road leads to the Stars)
We all know what we know, and everyone else knows we are wrong.
System Specifications in BIO
FordGT90Concept Oct 09, 2008, 12:11am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Presidential Debate
McCain could have easily taken the "that one" statement as a direct insult upon himself. He sees himself as the "straight talker" and the bus is the embodiment of that. Regardless...

McCain said it in a humorous tone so I really don't see the disrespect in it. If he said it three or more times, or in a darker tone, there would obviously be a problem with it. The one time Obama did use "John" was in a slightly humorous tone too. As such, I feel both are forgivable.

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
Beavis Khan Oct 09, 2008, 10:49am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Presidential Debate
Gerritt said:
The FM (fanny may or freddy mack) issues can be traced back to the Clinton Administration. The issue here is that a Republican administration that had a majority in congress for 6 years did nothing to change it.


I'd really love to hear one of the two candidates be a man and admit that mistake were made on both sides of the aisle. But, with Jim Johnson by Obama's side, and Phill Gramm by McCain's, I don't think it's very likely (since both men, in my opinion, deserve a nice fat slice of blame pie). The longer these idiots keep blaming the other guys, the longer it will be before anything useful is done. This has to be one of the most heinous, sustained, and thoroughly bipartisan failures of government in a long, long time.

____
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

- H.L. Mencken
FordGT90Concept Oct 09, 2008, 12:26pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Presidential Debate
Some things go as far back as Reagan (major deficit spending), some go back to the Roosevelt (Social Security), some date back to Johnson (Medicaid/Medicare), and some date back to Nixon (importing energy and eliminating the gold standard). Some have linked Clinton (deregulation) and Bush (push to use deregulated securities) to the current sub-prime mortgage crisis. Someone already quoted it at some point about Bush pushing to get minorities (primarily) in houses they can't afford. We all know how that ended...

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
Rooin Oct 09, 2008, 01:10pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Presidential Debate
Yeah it's sad they just keep pointing fingers. Side stepping questions, and inability to just give an answer without trying to denote the other is just getting old.

================================================================
"Even Satan wouldn't use customer service as a form of punishment." - Lucas http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com
FordGT90Concept Oct 09, 2008, 01:42pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Presidential Debate
The problem is that this current crisis, like most, is not a single-person issue. It is the result of a series of failures. A lot of people have been throwing flags out warning of what could happen should nothing be done. They were ignored largely by the Democratically controlled Congress. For now, I think the most blame needs to land on Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. They both are buried up to the eye balls in Fannie Mae and they are both on the Banking Committee that played a major role in bailing them out.

But, meh, we have a global crisis on our hands now and no quick fix. It'll probably be a month before we start to see any improvement in terms of liquidity of credit. It's just sad how, when people grab at straws when the economy starts to slide, those straws are always Democrat. Considering that Democrats have placed an insurmountable debt on our lap already (social security, medicaid, and medicare). We will come out of this crisis with the weakest dollar ever if a Democrat gets elected.

On the other hand. If a Republican gets elected (and not no pseudo-Republican like Bush) we will have the weakest government since the 1800's. I don't doubt the military would be the strongest it has been since the early 1990s but government involvement is likely to drop sharply.

That's really what this election is boiling down to:
Is bigger government the answer to this crisis or is a smaller government the answer?

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
Beavis Khan Oct 09, 2008, 02:13pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Presidential Debate
FordGT90Concept said:
That's really what this election is boiling down to:
Is bigger government the answer to this crisis or is a smaller government the answer?


I don't think it's quite that simple, but if you want to boil it down that far, the current crisis has shown that a completely unregulated market (derivatives - CDS specifically) has the power tos**tcan the entire world economy when things go badly. If that's not a good reason for government regulation (and more importantly, enforcement of regulation...I'm looking at you, SEC), then I don't know what is.

IMHO, you're buying into the political bullshit if you really think it's as simple as big govt vs small govt. How about some effective govt? Govt is what it is today because the minority is constantly sabotaging the majority. Too many politicians are willing to sacrifice our country and the welfare of 300+ million citizens at the altar of their party's re-election committee. Trying to assign blame to Democrats or Republicans is to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic, to steal a metaphor...

____
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

- H.L. Mencken
FordGT90Concept Oct 09, 2008, 04:40pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Presidential Debate
Beavis Khan said:
I don't think it's quite that simple, but if you want to boil it down that far, the current crisis has shown that a completely unregulated market (derivatives - CDS specifically) has the power tos**tcan the entire world economy when things go badly. If that's not a good reason for government regulation (and more importantly, enforcement of regulation...I'm looking at you, SEC), then I don't know what is.

True. McCain was saying (I don't remember when but it was in this past week) that we need to create a global economy oversight committee/organization/etc. that would introduce massive amounts of transparency so that problems like this can be seen far in advance and dealt with promptly. It's really hard to be specific on how to prevent this from happening again but I do agree that transparency is the first step in the right direct; however, it smells like the business equivalent of the Patriot Act. :~

I mean, the only way you can effectively regulate is if you can see the problems and the causes of those problems. Until that happens, regulation is a pipe dream.


Beavis Khan said:
IMHO, you're buying into the political bullshit if you really think it's as simple as big govt vs small govt. How about some effective govt?

Heh, such a thing doesn't exist. I really look at it as bloated and ineffective or starved and ineffective. ;)

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
Gerritt Oct 09, 2008, 07:57pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Presidential Debate
So, as I've postulated before, it is not a Party thing, but a bureaucacy thing.
The Bureaucracy continues no matter what party is in power, and the bureaucracy ALWAYS GROWS.
Dump all Government Agencies, DON'T make them larger (DHS, TSA, NASA).
Figure out a way to keep the career Politicians AND Bureaucrats from making careers out of what is supposed to be a public service!
Yes it is necessary that we have some depth of experience in the bureaucracies, but we shouldn't fund them on the size of the staff, but on thier return for the dollar.

Ad Astra Per Aspera
(A rough road leads to the Stars)
We all know what we know, and everyone else knows we are wrong.
System Specifications in BIO
FordGT90Concept Oct 09, 2008, 09:31pm EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Presidential Debate
Gerritt said:
Figure out a way to keep the career Politicians AND Bureaucrats from making careers out of what is supposed to be a public service!

That's a great line. :O

________________________
If I remember what I forgot, I have not forgotten it.
Beavis Khan Oct 10, 2008, 08:06am EDT Report Abuse
>> Re: Presidential Debate
FordGT90Concept said:

Beavis Khan said:
IMHO, you're buying into the political bullshit if you really think it's as simple as big govt vs small govt. How about some effective govt?

Heh, such a thing doesn't exist. I really look at it as bloated and ineffective or starved and ineffective. ;)


I've got to disagree with you here - if effective governance weren't possible, we'd all be living in caves and chasing each other with sticks.

Gerritt said:

Yes it is necessary that we have some depth of experience in the bureaucracies, but we shouldn't fund them on the size of the staff, but on thier return for the dollar.


In principle, I agree with this - but return on investment is always a tricky thing to measure, especially when the return comes in the form of services (say, FDA inspections) or infrastructure (highway system). Private companies (in collusion with legislators) can almost always cook the books to look cheaper than the government, but I don't buy the case that on principle, the private sector is always more efficient than the government (Medicare vs HMO administrative costs are always a great example). The profit motive in the private sector always gets in the way of optimal solutions. When dollars are your primary goal, for-profit business is fine, but when results of another kind are the goal, I think there will always be a place for competent government.

That said, incompetent government is almost always worse than incompetent private companies, because the private companies that suck will eventually go out of business. Not quite as likely with the government.

____
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

- H.L. Mencken

Continue Reading on Page: 1, 2, 3, 4

 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.