Who won the debate?

[nemo]

If anything, I believe Obama won due to him being aggressive against McCain,... as Mo mentioned he "was a media man's dream", he was much better than in earlier debates with Hillary.

[Mulletsoldier]

For me, there was no
clear winner. I would say it was a draw. Mr. McCain did not demonstrate the weakness observers might have expected in terms of the economy, and Mr. Obama showed nice command of foreign policy. McCain was expected to be more aggressive, given his weaker position in the polls before the debate, and he did come out more aggressive, almost always interjecting "What Senator Obama does not understand...." in his responses. On his own, Obama tried to contain McCain's attacks, while acknowledging any valid points McCain made. This aspect has been criticized by some as being too polite or gentlemanly. Others saw it as a necessary quality for a bipartisan or consensus-building approach. The second debate should be interesting, as both sides would be expected to have learnt a thing or two from the first debate.

Great comments, Ike; I agree in full!

[Dwight Schrute]

After having a night to sleep on it and a round of golf this morning, it was a boring debate. McCain won based on detials but it might have been the most boring win I've ever seen.

I don't see how he can win this election given the economy is front and center now. I think he needed to win by such a large margin that it really put a lot of doubt into people's mind about Obama. It didn't happen. Obama lost by the smallest of margins but for the most part, hung in there and looked competent.

If the results show both are competent, people will pick the younger Democrat in times of economic problems. Its 1992 all over again.

[AE14]

After having a night to sleep on it and a round of golf this morning, it was a boring debate. McCain won based on detials but it might have been the most boring win I've ever seen.

I don't see how he can win this election given the economy is front and center now. I think he needed to win by such a large margin that it really put a lot of doubt into people's mind about Obama. It didn't happen. Obama lost by the smallest of margins but for the most part, hung in there and looked competent.

If the results show both are competent, people will pick the younger Democrat in times of economic problems. Its 1992 all over again.

Jp, as much as it pains me to say this, and trust me this is painful, I could not agree more. ( I think I threw up a bit in my mouth with that one)

ALl kidding aside, I agree McCain was, ever so slightly, which was not enough. However, there are 3 more total debates (with the VP one) and that will tell the tale. However, right now I would say Obama is in control of his own destiny here

[Fastone]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobInKuwait
Its one thing to say change, its another thing to actually change something.
There is a lot of truth in that statement.


Well right now we'd have to say it remains to be seen as to what Sen Obama could really change. The only thing that Sen McCain has changed imo is the person he was a few short years ago into the complete opposite today. He really should be debating himself

:bruce3:

[grila jujitsu]

Obama Is Ignorant

And Will Destroy Our Country

Democrats Suck

really? really.....?

Your comment is Ignorant! hence you are Ignorant!

could you please stick to the topic! Your comment adds nothing to the convo!

[grila jujitsu]

In what sense could these comments be extracted from yesterday's debate, the core subject of this thread? From my point of view, completely zero-value adding!

just saw this!

[DAdams91982]

hens you are Ignorant!

Now why are hens ignorant? They just live and provide us food... whats wrong with them? OHHHH... must have meant HENCE?!

Really though, your last comment calling McCain a name, and proceeding on to making false comments really did not add anything to the conversation either.

Not saying what Power House said added anything either though.

Adams

[bigrobbierob]

McCain over Uh-bama.

Seriously, how many times can a person Uh and Um?

[grila jujitsu]

Now why are hens ignorant? They just live and provide us food... whats wrong with them? OHHHH... must have meant HENCE?!

Really though, your last comment calling McCain a name, and proceeding on to making false comments really did not add anything to the conversation either.

Not saying what Power House said added anything either though.

Adams

lol I didn’t realize I did that! oops my bad!

as for calling him a name, that is a actually a name he was called in collage and he like being called that. I was not making fun of him.

next, how did I make false comments? the fact is that McNasty DID misquote many people many times in the debate!

while I may not have added much I still added something, also I stayed on topic. (So watch yourself son! jk lol)

Thanks
GJJ

[DAdams91982]

lol I didn’t realize I did that! oops my bad!

as for calling him a name, that is a actually a name he was called in collage and he like being called that. I was not making fun of him.

next, how did I make false comments? the fact is that McNasty DID misquote many people many times in the debate!

while I may not have added much I still added something, also I stayed on topic. (So watch yourself son! jk lol)

Thanks
GJJ

I was only referring to the name calling, and saying he has no debating skills. When even I can say there was no clear cut winner in this case. And that is saying something. He hung right there with Obama, or vice versa, however you want to look at it. And reading about the debate, i seen that McCain had two blunders, I wouldnt call that misquoting many people.

(Now check yo self, be fo you wreck yo self. )

Adams

[dieselxxl]

all i know is if obama is elected president we are screwed. that means a democratic house of rep, democratic senate and democratic leader. Hes too young and inexperienced. You need a balance and without a republican influence you dont get that. I for one will vote mccain. Drilling for oil is our only hope!

[EasyEJL]

For me, there was no clear winner. I would say it was a draw. Mr. McCain did not demonstrate the weakness observers might have expected in terms of the economy, and Mr. Obama showed nice command of foreign policy. McCain was expected to be more aggressive, given his weaker position in the polls before the debate, and he did come out more aggressive, almost always interjecting "What Senator Obama does not understand...." in his responses. On his own, Obama tried to contain McCain's attacks, while acknowledging any valid points McCain made. This aspect has been criticized by some as being too polite or gentlemanly. Others saw it as a necessary quality for a bipartisan or consensus-building approach. The second debate should be interesting, as both sides would be expected to have learnt a thing or two from the first debate.

I'd say more or less the same, probably on a scale of 100 points i'd go with 52 mccain 48 obama, but since I had lower expectations of obama going in its a net win for him kind of like he beat the point spread in my head. But then again going in i expected no economic questions, and half the debate was about that.

The problem I saw with obama during the debate was him rolling his eyes, making faces, that sort of thing the whole time, which didnt seem quite presidential or even professional, particularly considering how many times he said that mccain was right about things. Also the difference between him attempting to be familiar and friendly and using John all the time while mccain said Senator Obama kind of irked me. Just not quite professional/presidential. If the next debate obama manages to avoid that, he'll look even better I think.

[Mulletsoldier]

I'd say more or less the same, probably on a scale of 100 points i'd go with 52 mccain 48 obama, but since I had lower expectations of obama going in its a net win for him kind of like he beat the point spread in my head. But then again going in i expected no economic questions, and half the debate was about that.

The problem I saw with obama during the debate was him rolling his eyes, making faces, that sort of thing the whole time, which didnt seem quite presidential or even professional, particularly considering how many times he said that mccain was right about things. Also the difference between him attempting to be familiar and friendly and using John all the time while mccain said Senator Obama kind of irked me. Just not quite professional/presidential. If the next debate obama manages to avoid that, he'll look even better I think.

Well, he actually called him 'Tom', 'Jim' and a host of other improper names! I found that to be amusing.

[grila jujitsu]

I was only referring to the name calling, and saying he has no debating skills. When even I can say there was no clear cut winner in this case. And that is saying something. He hung right there with Obama, or vice versa, however you want to look at it. And reading about the debate, i seen that McCain had two blunders, I wouldnt call that misquoting many people.

(Now check yo self, be fo you wreck yo self. )

Adams

lol oh shizznit son! I think I just wrecked myself! lol

I was in the speach and debate club (#10 in the nation at the time, now are #16) in high school and from what I learned Mcnasty did not display strong skills. He constantly attacked instead of proving his points. Yes, attacking is one way to debate, although it is usually done by people who don’t understand there own view points.

Yea that’s right I am bragging! lol

By the way, I should have been more descriptive in my first post, in fact I should be more descriptive and should have provided example in all of my posts in this thread. The fact is i am far too busy with F’ing school to do so. For that I am sorry sir, because I love having intelligent convos.

[grila jujitsu]

all i know is if obama is elected president we are screwed. that means a democratic house of rep, democratic senate and democratic leader. Hes too young and inexperienced. You need a balance and without a republican influence you dont get that. I for one will vote mccain. Drilling for oil is our only hope!

Wow... You know this! Oh benevolent one tell me more of you infinite wisdom! joke!

I believe the rep's had the prez (Bush), the house, and the senate under there control. look at how they did..... not so well. why dont we give the dems a try at fixing the problem the rep's created (most of the problems were started by the reagan admin).

Thanks
GJJ

[DAdams91982]

Wow... You know this! Oh benevolent one tell me more of you infinite wisdom! joke!

I believe the rep's had the prez (Bush), the house, and the senate under there control. look at how they did..... not so well. why dont we give the dems a try at fixing the problem the rep's created (most of the problems were started by the reagan admin).

Thanks
GJJ

Actually we are just now feeling the effects of the Sub Prime lending era that Clinton brought about. This problem with the economy started before bush had the floor. McCain brought these issues up time and time again since the institution of sub prime predatory lending, but by that time the dems controlled congress... and god for big they listen to someone from across the isle.

Adams

[grila jujitsu]

Actually we are just now feeling the effects of the Sub Prime lending era that Clinton brought about. This problem with the economy started before bush had the floor. McCain brought these issues up time and time again since the institution of sub prime predatory lending, but by that time the dems controlled congress... and god for big they listen to someone from across the isle.

Adams

The sub prime mortgages started before the Clinton and the real problems strated when the second bush decided to mess with the rates. (READ GREENSPANS BOOK HE EXPLAINS IT ALL VERYY WELL)the econ turned bad when bush and his cronies turned big business free and in to a laissez-faire. The kicker is that Bush allowed big business to manufacture in other countries with lower tariffs and taxes. thus, causing a loss in jobs and more money being spent in other countries instead of the good ole USA.

Besides, to blame the struggling econ on the housing market is ridiculous. There are a multitude of factors that created this econ that we no live in!

[slow-mun]

The sub prime mortgages started before the Clinton and the real problems strated when the second bush decided to mess with the rates. (READ GREENSPANS BOOK HE EXPLAINS IT ALL VERYY WELL)the econ turned bad when bush and his cronies turned big business free and in to a laissez-faire. The kicker is that Bush allowed big business to manufacture in other countries with lower tariffs and taxes. thus, causing a loss in jobs and more money being spent in other countries instead of the good ole USA.

Besides, to blame the struggling econ on the housing market is ridiculous. There are a multitude of factors that created this econ that we no live in!

The policies began with Jimmy Carter and were given fresh legs by Bill Clinton. The current crisis is due primarily to subprime lending and not just Bush's messing with the rates as you try to imply. There are other issues at play but to try and reduce the home mortgage industry as a bit player just shows how much you fail to understand about everything. In fact, Bush wanted regulation of the home mortage industry as far back as 2003 and McCain wanted it in 2005. This current crisis is the result of businessmen having politicians in their pockets. Every time regulation was proposed the politicians in bed with the mortgage industry squashed it. Both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame, but of the two, only the Democrats are still in office.

[AE14]

I agree, this goes well beyond party here. Both parties are a$$ deep in this and they are to blame. Now, sadly the taxpayer takes the hit, which is what we are getting far too acustomed to.