• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

LAST TANGO: The DEBATE -- Round 3

THE DEBATE: Round 3. Who won?

  • Sen McCain

    Votes: 23 28.8%

  • Sen Obama

    Votes: 25 31.3%

  • I am too drunk from playing the "My Friends" drinking game to know

    Votes: 2 2.5%

  • I am too drunk from playing the "Look" drinking game to know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Fuck it - I've had it. Not gonna watch. I'd rather have some Pu-Pu's and a pitcher of Navy Grog.

    Votes: 30 37.5%
  • Total voters
    80
  • Poll closed .
m3urthy

m3urthy

Why don't you have a seat right over there.
vulcanx said:
I liked the VP question: is your #2 ready to lead if you get taken out?

Sarah Palin killed my vote for McCain.
Click to expand...


Same here. I was a die hard Hillary guy and went over to McCain. I was pretty committed to McCain, although I don't really fall into the ideological 'net', I supported him because he is someone who I greatly admire and know.

After Palin, I just can't bring myself to vote for that ticket.
 
HercDriver

HercDriver

Idiots w/boats = job security
pilot
Super Moderator
A better debate than the previous two, and definitely Sen McCain's best performance. Sen McCain was able to be on offense, especially the first half hour. I don't think he caught Sen Obama off-guard and he didn't land any punches, but he was more in control of the debate the first half hour.

Once they got into the portion of negative campaigning the tone shifted IMO. No one really cares about John Lewis hurting McCain's feelings, and Ayers and ACORN (did he say something about the "fabric of democracy"??) are big nothing-burgers that most folks don't understand or care about. So he was on the board of some conservative foundation with a guy that did awful stuff when he was 8...who cares? And ACORN is the biggest smokescreen I have seen this season...I would love an actual argument why what they are accused of means squat in actuality.

After that it seemed McCain couldn't really connect on Obama and he tended to look angry and frustrated while Obama looked cool and unflustered.

No game changer. Get used to saying the word "President" in front of the word "Obama".
 
Cron

Cron

Yankee Uniform Tango
bunker6.jpg



20 ways to make the debates worth watching:

http://www.cracked.com/article_16707_20-ways-they-could-make-debates-actually-worth-watching.html
 
BlackBearHockey

BlackBearHockey

go blue...
lmnop said:
Seriously? I'm not sure that being able to upload a batshit crazy, tinfoil hat video to youtube constitutes 'good with a computer'.http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point... The difference is, in all my experiences, the liberals take anything done with photoshop or final cut and take it as gospel. THAT'S why half the people in America vote the way they do. How many people do you think will vote based on what Green Day or some actor said? I'd like to think the liberal and conservative uninformed will cancel each other out - but every conservative I've spoken to has had convictions as to why they're voting for which candidate (regardless of which one), about twice as many as their liberal counterparts.
 
m3urthy

m3urthy

Why don't you have a seat right over there.
That's exactly the point... The difference is, in all my experiences, the conservatives take anything done with photoshop or final cut and take it as gospel. THAT'S why half the people in America vote the way they do. How many people do you think will vote based on what Chuck Norris or some actor said? I'd like to think the liberal and conservative uninformed will cancel each other out - but every liberal I've spoken to has had convictions as to why they're voting for which candidate (regardless of which one), about twice as many as their conservative counterparts.

:icon_wink


Everything is relative.
 
BullGator

BullGator

Active Member
k_smittay said:
You can't say the current republican is handing the democrats a finely tuned machine to work with...
Click to expand...
I think that Gore or Kerry (-who I voted for) would have handed over "trouble" too. It is a rough time. And to think that it is solely Bush's fault is not true. He can veto and has a lot of individual power, but congress is a big part of our trouble these days. I believe that the democratic lead congress is at a 12% approval rating right now. I didn't like Bush in 2000 (was 17 and couldn't vote) and 2004, but you have to back our president, and you certainly can't blame everything on him. -It's not right, IMO. Most politicians are to blame, not one republican man: they should have focused more on our country and less on re-elections and getting away with different scandals. We do need change; I just hope this change that comes is in the right direction. :icon_wink
 
Spekkio

Spekkio

He bowls overhand.
villanelle said:
Do you think anyone who votes for Obama is voting based on how they feel, rather than what they think it best policy-wise?
Click to expand...
From all the political talk I've been hearing during this election season, it sounds like most people who support Obama's tax plan really think that the "rich" don't pay taxes. They envision a bunch of "evil" corporate owners hiring expensive accountants to find any and every loophole to evade the system so that they can hoarde their wealth. Oh, and they also feel like there's no such thing as someone who got rich through hard work and/or talent; it's always someone like Paris Hilton who inherited wealth. So when a candidate comes forth that says they'll raise taxes on the rich, these people feel like the candidate is finally going to deliver "justice." So yes, I do think that Obama supporters are voting on what they think it best policy-wise; unfortunately, they are misinformed. This is similar to many other major policy "debates." If people gave a good look at the facts in most of these cases, the best policy answer becomes plainly obvious.
 
Stick

Stick

Member
pilot
I hate it when Obama says he will raise taxes on the rich so he can redistribute the wealth to those who need it more. That is the complete opposite of what needs to be done. Taxes should be lowered for everyone. Have you ever worked for a poor man? No. That is because he can't afford to employ you. And what happens when you tax the rich man who employs you? He gets "poorer". He then has to pass that on somehow, so he cuts jobs, pay, or other things that trickle down to the "poor" man. If you cut everyones taxes that means they have more money to spend, which in turn means they can consume more, which means the economy grows do to the multiplier effect. It is all really basic macroeconomics. It is really sad how the uninformed listen to those individuals who know nothing about what they are talking about.
 
The Chief

The Chief

Retired
Contributor
If you read Sen. Obama's tax plan you find that it raises taxes on folks making $60,000 and above. I know that on the stump he sez differently, but read the plan. $60K puts you in the top 25% of all taxpapers. The middle, that is folks making $30,000 will get tax cuts and a hefty dose of payments from other taxpayers.

If you look at the top 10%, those folks make a whopping $100,000 a year or more. To the middle, that sure looks like a whole lot of money.

Further, the "payroll taxes" you hear about are FICA - Federal Insurance Contributions. The plan calls for those making over $100,000 to give those in the middle $500 a year, in the so called Payroll Tax as politically it sounds better that way. Confuse the little guy as it were, by changing the language.

The bottom 43% pay no taxes at all and the bottom 20% receive "credits" from other taxpayers.

Not saying it ain't fair; not saying it is fair; just what it is. But up close and personal, I was paying almost 16% of gross income in FICA, and since payments are means tested, would never get any of it back. The 16% is on gross, then I payed 42% (federal+state+local). Final numbers came out to be just over 61% of income to taxes. Sooooo I just quit work, enjoy the good life!!
 
BullGator

BullGator

Active Member
The Chief said:
If you read Sen. Obama's tax plan you find that it raises taxes on folks making $60,000 and above. I know that on the stump he sez differently, but read the plan. $60K puts you in the top 25% of all taxpapers. The middle, that is folks making $30,000 will get tax cuts and a hefty dose of payments from other taxpayers.

If you look at the top 10%, those folks make a whopping $100,000 a year or more. To the middle, that sure looks like a whole lot of money.

Further, the "payroll taxes" you hear about are FICA - Federal Insurance Contributions. The plan calls for those making over $100,000 to give those in the middle $500 a year, in the so called Payroll Tax as politically it sounds better that way. Confuse the little guy as it were, by changing the language.

The bottom 43% pay no taxes at all and the bottom 20% receive "credits" from other taxpayers.

Not saying it ain't fair; not saying it is fair; just what it is. But up close and personal, I was paying almost 16% of gross income in FICA, and since payments are means tested, would never get any of it back. The 16% is on gross, then I payed 42% (federal+state+local). Final numbers came out to be just over 61% of income to taxes. Sooooo I just quit work, enjoy the good life!!
Click to expand...
Interesting and disturbing. If I went on with what I originally typed, I think I'd be banned...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top