did not watch, but from what i gather, obama talked about planting trees and changing light bulbs, then spent a lot of time speaking in generalities intended to make people think he's a "reformer" or "outsider" or whatever term they're using these days to describe him.
also, classic that he apparently responded to a question about how he would react to a terror attack by talking about "first responders," allowing hillary clinton to smack one out of the yard by talking about "retaliating." no fan of mrs. clinton, but he made a big mistake in allowing her to make him look like such a wuss. bet he never does that again.
Seems like same old stuff. I admit I didn't watch because I was too busy having my mind changed by Robert, but did they discuss things other than Iraq? Seriously, we all know they are against Iraq and a lot of people know it's been a catastrophe. Let's just hope the next debate deals less with it(of course it won't). Here is what I would like to see discussed
1) outsourcing. I know Jeffrey thinks it's great. I think it's terrible. Have never really heard a good answer of why it's good. Only heard how it saves these companies tons of money so that they can pay their CFO's 100s of millions of dollars. America's backbone is the middle-class, but it has slowly been eroding over the past 30 years.
2) problems with the inner-city. I wish someone would just go hay-wire and start talking about instituting a mandatory birth-control program for women who are single and cannot afford a child. Now my feminists don't get too riled up. I would propose to have men with multiple out-of-wedlock children put on birth-control, only a lot more difficult to do.
3) an opening of the facts: Hey, a lot of us know the root causes of the Middle East's hatred for us is our past/present interventions just about every middle eastern country and our support of Israel. But no one will ever publicly say (although you mentioned something about Obama saying something) that "hey, we messed up in the past" or "hey, even though all of Truman's top advisors were against the creation of Israel, we did it and now it is our responsibility to play a leading and FAIR role in that mess." They need to force the Israelis to give the Palestenians some of their land back and create more economic opportunities for them. Don't get me wrong, Israel should be allowed to protect their borders as stringently as possible. But please quit with the biblical prophecy stuff.
for all of you that keep complaining about candidates (mainly obama) not giving specifics, you do know about the "internets", right? I mean, you are on this website, so you must know about "the google"?
If you want to know about where someone stands go to their website. Not very hard.
When you are thinking about a car or computer, don't you go on the internet? This is not that different. The candidates all have sites that have great details about their proposals.
So quit with these nonsensical criticicms that our site or the candidates are not specific enough. Go to the damn websites if you have questions.
I agree, silent majority. People who cannot afford a child should not have one, or at least not have several. It's a responsibility issue, plain and simple. At least offer these people education on birth control (although I have no idea if this would actually work). Now I know this is something that will likely not happen any time soon, but it has it's merits. These children become burdens on our social programs. I'm not blaming the children, but the irresponsible parents that have them. If birth control were heavily practiced in the inner city, maybe the social programs we currently have would be better able to support the people who receive it. I've always wondered why these people keep on procreating.
Chuck, not all the candidates lay out the issues on their websites. Hillary Clinton for example. There is no mention of her stance on issues, but you can certainly give her $$.
a semi-fair point, though i did throw in the qualifier that my observations are the result of what i have gathered from various media accounts since last night's debate.
credit to you though for not displaying ridiculous amounts of unprovoked rage and instability these last few weeks.
"these people" refer to those who are poor yet continue to have children that they can't provide for. I am referring to all people like that, although I'm sure you've already pegged me as a racist.
yeah its easy to parse and give half the story, "these people" was in direct reference to " People who cannot afford a child"
Although ironically when anon heard "these people" I wonder who he immediately thought of?
See, how are you supposed to discuss anything when every word is loaded and the meaning of the words are open for interpretation with no regard for the speakers intent?
T-bag, agree with you whole-heartedly. These extremist liberals will probably talk about taking away our right to have children. They are already implying the racism when, in reality, this has nothing to do with race. They can be white, black, brown, purple. I do not care. It boils down to responsibility.
Do I expect someone who was brought up in a hopeless situation to make the right choices? Of course not. Am I blaming them? No. This wretched cycle has to stop somewhere though and this would work a lot better than hand-outs.
I think they should pay all of these people who are incapable of properly providing for their children $1,000/ every 6 months for not having children unless they're married. We all know the kids will likely suffer the same fate as Anthony "A-Boogie" Buford. The payments will begin at age 14 and can last until menopause.
Not that I think economics is the determining factor in what a life is worth, but $2,000/yr is an incredibly small amount in comparison to what these kids will cost in health care, incarceration, prevention programs, etc. Not to mention they too will have children who will go nowhere.
Please spare me the "do you know how many of those kids could become Dr's, lawyers, leaders, etc. We all know it's about 1 in a zillion.
Or I have a better idea. We can allow them to keep having children and then bus the kids to Revere Schools. That was an idea that worked extremely well in other areas.
Really, there is nothing heartless about this. It's more heartless to continue to allow these kids to grow up in impoverished/hopeless situations.
If things were like how they were a century ago, when a family raised the children, them being poor or not would not really be an issue. But considering the values of the inner-city have gone to shit, as evidence by A-Boogie being made out to be a martyr, it is.
This is about the stupidest thread I've ever read here. Anyways, I was amazed at how bad Richardson was: "1.....2.....3" how many times did he do that? I would assume he is just running for VP. I don't think anyone looked that good because no one answered any of the questions. On the "how would you respond to terrorist attacks" question the only legitimate answer came from Kucinich. Retaliation isn't a solution to the terrorist problem. Thats what they want. That should be clear by how little Bill Clinton's retaliations did to stem terrorism. Bombs are never going to stop non-state sponsered terrorism. It just proves how far right the whole political debate in this country now is. If you don't want to bomb people you are now a pussy. Its sick.
gravel was fantastic. at least he has the balls to speak his mind and tell the truth. i'm not holding my breath to wait for other scumbag politicians to do the same. D
I think abortions are a much more drastic measure. Do I think they're allowable, of course. But do I think abortions are a better alternative than just not having the kids in the first place, definitely not.
More jobs are "insourced" into america than outsourced. America's employment rate hasn't budged. Where is the crisis?
Israell. They have been nothing but a mess for us on the foreign policy front. That said, they've given ALOT of land back, land that they took after winning wars that they didn't start. Fact remains: if the Palestinians dropped their arms now, there would be peace. If Israel drops their arms now, there would be no Israel.
Your 2nd proposal is disgusting. You sound like a big government conservative. We already have one of those in Bush. We all hate him. You should too.
I'm surprised just how many posters thought that Hillary looked good. I can't stand her voice. She's to the democratic party what Couric is to CBS.
Ah my good friend Jeff... What kinds of jobs are insourced?
The jobs we are losing are manufacturing jobs. They are the type of blue-collar jobs that built America and made it great. What has happened as a result of these jobs being outsourced? The middle-class is rapidly eroding. I've done research and I've seen that the gap between the rich and poor is ever increasing.
"land that they(israel) took after winning wars that they didn't start." Nice point Jeff. Let's look at who took whose land first though. What do you say to the fact that the Palestenians land was taken from them? Not saying I am against Israel. I'm just saying that there should be a little bit of understanding.
And who says I do not hate Bush? And why is my proposal "disgusting?" Use some rationale to back up your statements and we'll go from there.
not forced, just encouraged, Silent isn't going around making everybody wear condoms or just do it in the butt, he is going to provide incentive for people to not have kids-I like it. Jeff, you are acting like he's running around with a coat hanger and a bloody bucket.
SIlent I agree paying poor people who don't know when to stop procreating will be a good thing-and after each kid the amount that will be paid will be dropped. Also this will stimulate local economies for more than welfare or anything else would. This is why I built my fancy school in Africa-at least they will appreciate it
Oct 17 - 46/45 - McCain +01
29 Comments:
Gravel was so great. I literally had never heard of him until today. He is like a Dick Cheney meets Dennis Kucinich. So great.
Otherwise, Hillary did good. And I was reminded of why I used to love Edwards so much.
Overall, we have so much to be happy about. Every man up there would make a fine President.
did not watch, but from what i gather, obama talked about planting trees and changing light bulbs, then spent a lot of time speaking in generalities intended to make people think he's a "reformer" or "outsider" or whatever term they're using these days to describe him.
also, classic that he apparently responded to a question about how he would react to a terror attack by talking about "first responders," allowing hillary clinton to smack one out of the yard by talking about "retaliating." no fan of mrs. clinton, but he made a big mistake in allowing her to make him look like such a wuss. bet he never does that again.
Seems like same old stuff. I admit I didn't watch because I was too busy having my mind changed by Robert, but did they discuss things other than Iraq? Seriously, we all know they are against Iraq and a lot of people know it's been a catastrophe. Let's just hope the next debate deals less with it(of course it won't). Here is what I would like to see discussed
1) outsourcing. I know Jeffrey thinks it's great. I think it's terrible. Have never really heard a good answer of why it's good. Only heard how it saves these companies tons of money so that they can pay their CFO's 100s of millions of dollars. America's backbone is the middle-class, but it has slowly been eroding over the past 30 years.
2) problems with the inner-city. I wish someone would just go hay-wire and start talking about instituting a mandatory birth-control program for women who are single and cannot afford a child. Now my feminists don't get too riled up. I would propose to have men with multiple out-of-wedlock children put on birth-control, only a lot more difficult to do.
3) an opening of the facts: Hey, a lot of us know the root causes of the Middle East's hatred for us is our past/present interventions just about every middle eastern country and our support of Israel. But no one will ever publicly say (although you mentioned something about Obama saying something) that "hey, we messed up in the past" or "hey, even though all of Truman's top advisors were against the creation of Israel, we did it and now it is our responsibility to play a leading and FAIR role in that mess." They need to force the Israelis to give the Palestenians some of their land back and create more economic opportunities for them. Don't get me wrong, Israel should be allowed to protect their borders as stringently as possible. But please quit with the biblical prophecy stuff.
Obama should talk about specific. You know, like the specific stuff a real leader like GW Bush would say: "hard work" and "we will not accept defeat"
silent, wow, you went and made the craziest proposal in #2. Then made the most rational proposal in #3.
Dan, agreed/funny
anonymous, not sure what your deal is. i "did not watch", but Obama needs to be more specific. that's an odd position.
ATTENTION:
for all of you that keep complaining about candidates (mainly obama) not giving specifics, you do know about the "internets", right? I mean, you are on this website, so you must know about "the google"?
If you want to know about where someone stands go to their website. Not very hard.
When you are thinking about a car or computer, don't you go on the internet? This is not that different. The candidates all have sites that have great details about their proposals.
So quit with these nonsensical criticicms that our site or the candidates are not specific enough. Go to the damn websites if you have questions.
My main thought on the debate was that Hillary seemed the most Presidential.
This debate was not a time for specefics..campaign's build over time and the 1st debate is not the time for specefics..
I forgot something...I think Rev Robert would agree...
1) A countdown for Tony "the salesman" Snow's death. I think that would be fun, right Robert?
I honestly feel disgusting for writing such a thing. How you wrote what you did about him is beyond me.
I agree, silent majority. People who cannot afford a child should not have one, or at least not have several. It's a responsibility issue, plain and simple. At least offer these people education on birth control (although I have no idea if this would actually work). Now I know this is something that will likely not happen any time soon, but it has it's merits. These children become burdens on our social programs. I'm not blaming the children, but the irresponsible parents that have them. If birth control were heavily practiced in the inner city, maybe the social programs we currently have would be better able to support the people who receive it. I've always wondered why these people keep on procreating.
Chuck, not all the candidates lay out the issues on their websites. Hillary Clinton for example. There is no mention of her stance on issues, but you can certainly give her $$.
I though Edwards and sweaty Richardson were the big losers last night.
Edward's son-of-a-miner (who gets $400 haircuts) charm has worn off. I think he's in trouble. He looks nervous every time it's his turn to speak.
And when they asked him his personal role model...and he paused for 15 seconds...said he didn't have one...then mentioned God...I laughed out loud.
I also liked that Biden mentioned (without being prompted) Putin along side Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il.
chuck,
a semi-fair point, though i did throw in the qualifier that my observations are the result of what i have gathered from various media accounts since last night's debate.
credit to you though for not displaying ridiculous amounts of unprovoked rage and instability these last few weeks.
"these people"
Anonymous,
"these people" refer to those who are poor yet continue to have children that they can't provide for. I am referring to all people like that, although I'm sure you've already pegged me as a racist.
yeah its easy to parse and give half the story, "these people" was in direct reference to " People who cannot afford a child"
Although ironically when anon heard "these people" I wonder who he immediately thought of?
See, how are you supposed to discuss anything when every word is loaded and the meaning of the words are open for interpretation with no regard for the speakers intent?
"credit to you though for not displaying ridiculous amounts of unprovoked rage and instability these last few weeks."
my the bar is set high
T-bag, agree with you whole-heartedly. These extremist liberals will probably talk about taking away our right to have children. They are already implying the racism when, in reality, this has nothing to do with race. They can be white, black, brown, purple. I do not care. It boils down to responsibility.
Do I expect someone who was brought up in a hopeless situation to make the right choices? Of course not. Am I blaming them? No. This wretched cycle has to stop somewhere though and this would work a lot better than hand-outs.
I think they should pay all of these people who are incapable of properly providing for their children $1,000/ every 6 months for not having children unless they're married. We all know the kids will likely suffer the same fate as Anthony "A-Boogie" Buford. The payments will begin at age 14 and can last until menopause.
Not that I think economics is the determining factor in what a life is worth, but $2,000/yr is an incredibly small amount in comparison to what these kids will cost in health care, incarceration, prevention programs, etc. Not to mention they too will have children who will go nowhere.
Please spare me the "do you know how many of those kids could become Dr's, lawyers, leaders, etc. We all know it's about 1 in a zillion.
Or I have a better idea. We can allow them to keep having children and then bus the kids to Revere Schools. That was an idea that worked extremely well in other areas.
Really, there is nothing heartless about this. It's more heartless to continue to allow these kids to grow up in impoverished/hopeless situations.
If things were like how they were a century ago, when a family raised the children, them being poor or not would not really be an issue. But considering the values of the inner-city have gone to shit, as evidence by A-Boogie being made out to be a martyr, it is.
This is about the stupidest thread I've ever read here.
Anyways, I was amazed at how bad Richardson was: "1.....2.....3" how many times did he do that? I would assume he is just running for VP. I don't think anyone looked that good because no one answered any of the questions. On the "how would you respond to terrorist attacks" question the only legitimate answer came from Kucinich. Retaliation isn't a solution to the terrorist problem. Thats what they want. That should be clear by how little Bill Clinton's retaliations did to stem terrorism. Bombs are never going to stop non-state sponsered terrorism. It just proves how far right the whole political debate in this country now is. If you don't want to bomb people you are now a pussy. Its sick.
gravel was fantastic. at least he has the balls to speak his mind and tell the truth. i'm not holding my breath to wait for other scumbag politicians to do the same.
D
silent: that's what abortions are for
I think abortions are a much more drastic measure. Do I think they're allowable, of course. But do I think abortions are a better alternative than just not having the kids in the first place, definitely not.
Silent.
You need to do some research again pal.
More jobs are "insourced" into america than outsourced. America's employment rate hasn't budged. Where is the crisis?
Israell. They have been nothing but a mess for us on the foreign policy front. That said, they've given ALOT of land back, land that they took after winning wars that they didn't start. Fact remains: if the Palestinians dropped their arms now, there would be peace. If Israel drops their arms now, there would be no Israel.
Your 2nd proposal is disgusting. You sound like a big government conservative. We already have one of those in Bush. We all hate him. You should too.
I'm surprised just how many posters thought that Hillary looked good. I can't stand her voice. She's to the democratic party what Couric is to CBS.
Ah my good friend Jeff... What kinds of jobs are insourced?
The jobs we are losing are manufacturing jobs. They are the type of blue-collar jobs that built America and made it great. What has happened as a result of these jobs being outsourced? The middle-class is rapidly eroding. I've done research and I've seen that the gap between the rich and poor is ever increasing.
"land that they(israel) took after winning wars that they didn't start." Nice point Jeff. Let's look at who took whose land first though. What do you say to the fact that the Palestenians land was taken from them? Not saying I am against Israel. I'm just saying that there should be a little bit of understanding.
And who says I do not hate Bush? And why is my proposal "disgusting?" Use some rationale to back up your statements and we'll go from there.
Manufacturing jobs are insourced!! Doesn't the state you live in have a toyota or honda plant yet??
I'm a libertarian. It's kind of hard to explain why forced birth control seems so disgusting.... Maybe I had better do some soul searching.
not forced, just encouraged, Silent isn't going around making everybody wear condoms or just do it in the butt, he is going to provide incentive for people to not have kids-I like it. Jeff, you are acting like he's running around with a coat hanger and a bloody bucket.
SIlent I agree paying poor people who don't know when to stop procreating will be a good thing-and after each kid the amount that will be paid will be dropped. Also this will stimulate local economies for more than welfare or anything else would. This is why I built my fancy school in Africa-at least they will appreciate it
-Oprah
oprah, read his first post. it says MANDATORY birth control. He said it, not me.
Post a Comment
<< Home