DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum

DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum (http://www.diychatroom.com/)
-   Off Topic (http://www.diychatroom.com/f39/)
-   -   The debate (http://www.diychatroom.com/f39/debate-27428/)

Public Designs 09-27-2008 02:00 PM

The debate
 
Did anybody watch the presidential debate last night? If so you do you think won? I am going to have to say McCain because he was making better points and was obviously irritating Obama.

AtlanticWBConst. 09-27-2008 03:32 PM

The funny thing is that people's opinions will be skewed by the person that they like, or don't like. Example, on one news channel this morning, they showed 3 different reporters giving three different reviews of the debates.

Reporter # 1: "Mcain was really in the offensive throughout the entire debate, he had Obama on the defensive. Mcain was in control."

Reporter # 2: "We can all clearly see, that change is needed, and, where the change will come from."

Reporter # 3: "We saw that no good answers were given by either candidate. The whole debate essentially accomplished nothing."

kjwoodworking 09-27-2008 06:01 PM

I wondered while watching the dog and pony show, if any candidate that became president actually did the things he said he would while campaigning for president?


AtlanticWBConst is right,the news isn't helping straighten any of it out.

I was shocked the other day when one news channel was talking about the vice presidents and what would they do once elected because Cheney did so much.

What????? I will admit I don't keep up with the news as much as I should, but what did Cheney do? I never heard anything about him until he shoots a fellow hunter, or gets admitted into the hospital.

All this time I thought he was the Hide and Go Seek Champion and no one ever found him. You never saw or heard anything that he was doing.

I swear he looks like Butt Head from Bevis and Butt head.

Go ahead, let me have all you Cheney fans!!

Clutchcargo 09-27-2008 07:09 PM

To me, McCain looked nervous while Obama answered more clearly and more concisely while McCain seemed to get off course of the questions being asked. I'd say Obama won. McCain's attempt to make himself look more important than Obama by postponing the debate was ridiculous. He took a hit when Washington sent him home.

AtlanticWBConst. 09-28-2008 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutchcargo (Post 161703)
To me, McCain looked nervous while Obama answered more clearly and more concisely while McCain seemed to get off course of the questions being asked. I'd say Obama won. McCain's attempt to make himself look more important than Obama by postponing the debate was ridiculous. He took a hit when Washington sent him home.

Let me guess - You're an Obama Supporter?

Clutchcargo 09-28-2008 11:44 AM

Undecided right now, but McCain didn't impress me.

jerryh3 09-28-2008 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutchcargo (Post 161914)
Undecided right now, but McCain didn't impress me.

Neither impresses me. Vote third party.

Termite 09-28-2008 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerryh3 (Post 161916)
Neither impresses me. Vote third party.

That's like buying a powerball ticket but refusing to pick any numbers. :jester:

jerryh3 09-28-2008 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekctermite (Post 161931)
That's like buying a powerball ticket but refusing to pick any numbers. :jester:

Kind of. But when the two major choices are bad and worse, at least I can say I voted for neither.

RDS 09-29-2008 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerryh3 (Post 161939)
Kind of. But when the two major choices are bad and worse, at least I can say I voted for neither.

So voting is a way to feel good about yourself, to feel morally pure and untainted? I thought it was supposed to be about civic responsibility. Responsibility can involve hard choices that don't necessarily leave you feeling pure.

Obviously you're free to vote how you like, which is a rare enough privilege in this world. But I have to say (admittedly, as someone who would have considered voting third-party in 2000, and now is glad he didn't) I think this is an unwise attitude.

If you truly think the choice here is between 'bad' and 'worse', don't you think your civic duty, your moral obligation as a person, is to vote for 'bad'? A vote for neither is, in effect, a vote for the winner. Who that winner is may not make much difference to your life -- if you're basically self-reliant economically, basically healthy, etc. -- but I guarantee, for lots of your fellow citizens (including those not old enough to vote yet) the difference between 'bad' and 'worse' can be hugely significant.

Unless you can, with a clear conscience, say that you don't give a crap about any of those people, you should give them the benefit of your vote for the lesser of two evils, in my opinion. At least that way, you're helping to increase the chance that 'worse' won't befall them.

And lest there be any confusion: I'm not denying your right to vote how you darn well please. That's a freedom you're lucky to have. But freedom is one thing, and good judgment in how to *use* that freedom is something else. This is my view of what's good judgment on this question.

Clutchcargo 09-29-2008 11:25 AM

If the choice is bad or worse, how would you classify President Bush?

jerryh3 09-29-2008 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutchcargo (Post 166315)
If the choice is bad or worse, how would you classify President Bush?

Somewhere in the middle.

jerryh3 09-29-2008 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RDS (Post 166312)
So voting is a way to feel good about yourself, to feel morally pure and untainted? I thought it was supposed to be about civic responsibility. Responsibility can involve hard choices that don't necessarily leave you feeling pure.

Obviously you're free to vote how you like, which is a rare enough privilege in this world. But I have to say (admittedly, as someone who would have considered voting third-party in 2000, and now is glad he didn't) I think this is an unwise attitude.

If you truly think the choice here is between 'bad' and 'worse', don't you think your civic duty, your moral obligation as a person, is to vote for 'bad'? A vote for neither is, in effect, a vote for the winner. Who that winner is may not make much difference to your life -- if you're basically self-reliant economically, basically healthy, etc. -- but I guarantee, for lots of your fellow citizens (including those not old enough to vote yet) the difference between 'bad' and 'worse' can be hugely significant.

Unless you can, with a clear conscience, say that you don't give a crap about any of those people, you should give them the benefit of your vote for the lesser of two evils, in my opinion. At least that way, you're helping to increase the chance that 'worse' won't befall them.

And lest there be any confusion: I'm not denying your right to vote how you darn well please. That's a freedom you're lucky to have. But freedom is one thing, and good judgment in how to *use* that freedom is something else. This is my view of what's good judgment on this question.

Who said anything about feeling good about myself? You are supposed to vote for the person who you believe will do the best job of leading the country. If we, as a country, continue to vote for a candidate just beacause we don't want the other one to win, there really is no hope of an effective change. And I really don't think a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. Enough of this political stuff, let's get back to fixing things.

Floorwizard 09-29-2008 06:36 PM

I think Obama looked better at showing he can reach across the isle and work better with all parties.
I think McCain showed he can easily make a decision and stick with it.

Kap 10-04-2008 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerryh3 (Post 161916)
Neither impresses me. Vote third party.

A big amen to that.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:02 PM.