BuffettNews.com

Moonie wrote:

mermaidindisguise wrote:Christine - did you see her interview with Katie? Is it just me - I am trying not to be biased - but it really was horrible - and I was actually frightened of the thought she could be our VP who has to have conversations with foreign leaders. I have enough issues with John McCain - but even more with her.

I watched it. I was painful. Her response about I'll go find ya some, etc. was nothing less than stupid and confirms her lack of experience.

What a ridiculous choice of VP candidate. The Republican Party should be embarrassed.

Her stance on shooting wolves from low flying airplanes, did it for me.

Does she think because she's cute she can still answer with stupid replies and no one notice?

I was actually undecided until up to a few weeks ago. I'm going with NEO, sit this one out.

Hunting from aircraft is illegal except that governments can do it for a number of reasons, listed among these is the 'need' to protect wildlife. In this case I suppose that means destroying wolves to 'protect' the elk and caribou so that hunters (a big business in Alaska) can then kill the elk and caribou.

Apart from the ethic of destroying one species to save another for eventual sport killing, I don't think Alaskan state officials understand the place of predators like wolves in maintaining a healthy ecosystem. Drastic culling of the wolf population will have a negative impact on elk and caribou populations. There are sportsmen around the world who understand this.

But then, opening the ANWR (the 'WR' part stands for 'wildlife refuge') will also likely have a negative impact on these same populations.

Sounds like misguided and short-term thinking so that people (hunting outfitters and lodges) can make a buck now - forget about tomorrow.

Maybe Sarah Palin shares the beliefs of fellow Pentecostal Christian James Watt, Reagan's former Interior Secretary. Watt, an evangelical associated with the same Assembly of God sect as Sarah Palin, expressed the idea during his tenure that the nation's natural resources were God's gift to Americans. While in office, he oversaw the leasing of vast areas of federal lands to logging coal mining interests and infamously advocated exploratory drilling of the entire American coast line, along with federal forests and national parks. His ideas of Christian stewardship of the environment were odd, to say the least.

But her evangelical credentials were one of the main reasons Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate. Evangelical Christians made it plain long ago that they don't like John McCain. He'll never get elected without their support. His campaign hopes that Palin's religious credentials among the evangelicals will outweigh her now obvious failings in other areas.

flyboy55 wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:Regardless of who said what. Regardless of which direction they were looking. They was one huge mistake made last night and it was repeated over ten times in a very short debate. Barrack Obama said the words "John McCain is right . . . ." over and over again. Never, never NEVER do that. My high school political science teacher knew that much! It doesn't matter if Barrack Obama said "John McCain is right, BUT . . . ." The fact is the words "John McCain is right . . . " were heard atleat 10 times that I counted by millions of people who may or may not be undecided voters.

On McCain's end, the phrase "Barrack Obama clearly doesn't understand" or "Barrack Obama obviously does not have the experience" were repeated over and over . . .

I watched the debate. I noted how afterward, one of the commentators picked up this. I believe a little context would be in order here. Most of the times that Obama began a rebuttal of McCain with seeming agreement, it had to do with 'motherhood and apple pie' issues that everyone agrees with. It doesn't change the fact that there are substantive policy differences between the two candidates.

Speaking of high school debating tactics, McCain's annoying repetition of the phrase "my opponent doesn't understand . . ." or words to that effect, an obvious play to get Obama riled up, apparently didn't work.

I am not saying what I personally agree with. But stating your opponent is right in a debate numerous times is a proven mistake. Stating your opponent is wrong is a strategy proven to work. I don't necessarily like it or condone it. As for getting Obama riled up; I don't think that any candidate plans on that . . . I think McCain just wanted the words "Obama doesn't understand . . ." or the like on record. Obama's "John McCain is right" is now on record. Regardless of the substance that is the perception.

flyboy55 wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:Regardless of who said what. Regardless of which direction they were looking. They was one huge mistake made last night and it was repeated over ten times in a very short debate. Barrack Obama said the words "John McCain is right . . . ." over and over again. Never, never NEVER do that. My high school political science teacher knew that much! It doesn't matter if Barrack Obama said "John McCain is right, BUT . . . ." The fact is the words "John McCain is right . . . " were heard atleat 10 times that I counted by millions of people who may or may not be undecided voters.

On McCain's end, the phrase "Barrack Obama clearly doesn't understand" or "Barrack Obama obviously does not have the experience" were repeated over and over . . .

I watched the debate. I noted how afterward, one of the commentators picked up this. I believe a little context would be in order here. Most of the times that Obama began a rebuttal of McCain with seeming agreement, it had to do with 'motherhood and apple pie' issues that everyone agrees with. It doesn't change the fact that there are substantive policy differences between the two candidates.

Speaking of high school debating tactics, McCain's annoying repetition of the phrase "my opponent doesn't understand . . ." or words to that effect, an obvious play to get Obama riled up, apparently didn't work.

I am not saying what I personally agree with. But stating your opponent is right in a debate numerous times is a proven mistake. Stating your opponent is wrong is a strategy proven to work. I don't necessarily like it or condone it. As for getting Obama riled up; I don't think that any candidate plans on that . . . I think McCain just wanted the words "Obama doesn't understand . . ." or the like on record. Obama's "John McCain is right" is now on record. Regardless of the substance that is the perception.

Martonian wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:Watching CNN this morning and the call in poll was 68% for McCain. Might have changed. Who knows? But I think that McCain picked up way more of the truly undecided last night and Obama certainly helped by calling him "right" . .. IMO.

Maybe that was an unscientific poll, like on Hannity & Colmes last night you could text in who you thought the winner was and it was 82% to 16% that McCain won.

Here is more from the CNN poll:

Thinking about the following characteristics and qualities, please say whether you think each one better described Barack Obama or John McCain during tonight's debate:

• Was more intelligent: Obama 55%, McCain 30%

• Expressed his views more clearly: Obama 53%, McCain 36%

• Spent more time attacking his opponent: McCain 60%, Obama 23%

• Was more sincere and authentic: Obama 46%, McCain 38%

• Seemed to be the stronger leader: Obama 49%, McCain 43%

• Was more likeable: Obama 61%, McCain 26%

• Was more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you: Obama 62%, McCain 32%

And a CBS poll of undecideds found this:

Thirty-nine percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-four percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-seven percent saw it as a draw.

Forty-six percent of uncommitted voters said their opinion of Obama got better tonight. Thirty-two percent said their opinion of McCain got better.

Sixty-six percent of uncommitted voters think Obama would make the right decisions about the economy. Forty-two percent think McCain would.

Also, a Fox focus group of undecideds felt Obama won.

Again, I think it was a draw, not a game-changer really. McCain needed to win decisively to arrest his poll slide and he didn't do that.

I think I might have confused another poll with the CNN poll. My mistake. It was probably the CBS poll.

I am no longer on the fence. I know who I'm voting for. *whew*
It's still a little like taking the 'lesser of two evils'.

Moonie wrote:

mermaidindisguise wrote:Christine - did you see her interview with Katie? Is it just me - I am trying not to be biased - but it really was horrible - and I was actually frightened of the thought she could be our VP who has to have conversations with foreign leaders. I have enough issues with John McCain - but even more with her.

I watched it. I was painful. Her response about I'll go find ya some, etc. was nothing less than stupid and confirms her lack of experience.

What a ridiculous choice of VP candidate. The Republican Party should be embarrassed.

Her stance on shooting wolves from low flying airplanes, did it for me.

Does she think because she's cute she can still answer with stupid replies and no one notice?

I was actually undecided until up to a few weeks ago. I'm going with NEO, sit this one out.

The only thing is, that sitting it out could ultimately help the Republicans hold onto the White House - please think about it. The Christian Fundamentalists are VERY good at getting the vote out.

Wino you know wrote:......while the REGULAR Americans are voting for McCain regardless of HIS running mate.

Gee, and all this time I thought that I was a regular American.....

ya see, that's my problem with the rabid right....they want to think that only THEY are god fearing, country loving, patriotic Americans...and we cant let them get away with that kind of sh*t!!

I dont know you, Wino, but I'm here to tell you that I am as REGULAR an American as you will ever be!!

drunkpirate66 wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:

drunkpirate66 wrote:Regardless of who said what. Regardless of which direction they were looking. They was one huge mistake made last night and it was repeated over ten times in a very short debate. Barrack Obama said the words "John McCain is right . . . ." over and over again. Never, never NEVER do that. My high school political science teacher knew that much! It doesn't matter if Barrack Obama said "John McCain is right, BUT . . . ." The fact is the words "John McCain is right . . . " were heard atleat 10 times that I counted by millions of people who may or may not be undecided voters.

On McCain's end, the phrase "Barrack Obama clearly doesn't understand" or "Barrack Obama obviously does not have the experience" were repeated over and over . . .

I watched the debate. I noted how afterward, one of the commentators picked up this. I believe a little context would be in order here. Most of the times that Obama began a rebuttal of McCain with seeming agreement, it had to do with 'motherhood and apple pie' issues that everyone agrees with. It doesn't change the fact that there are substantive policy differences between the two candidates.

Speaking of high school debating tactics, McCain's annoying repetition of the phrase "my opponent doesn't understand . . ." or words to that effect, an obvious play to get Obama riled up, apparently didn't work.

I am not saying what I personally agree with. But stating your opponent is right in a debate numerous times is a proven mistake. Stating your opponent is wrong is a strategy proven to work. I don't necessarily like it or condone it. As for getting Obama riled up; I don't think that any candidate plans on that . . . I think McCain just wanted the words "Obama doesn't understand . . ." or the like on record. Obama's "John McCain is right" is now on record. Regardless of the substance that is the perception.

You're right.

In these tenuous, uncertain times of REAL wartime and crisis,
that's the kind of bull**** logic that would sway the same bubbas who found George W. Bush to be a man of particular substance.
So, congratulations... the Cons could certainly claim "a win" on that point.

On a side note.... regardless of whom you've decided you're "for" or "against" or if you're just fed up with the whole political saga between Democrats and Republicans, it saddens me when people say that they aren't going to vote!
YOU MUST VOTE - how can you be a part of this free American society and not exercise your right to vote? Do you know how many people suffered and even died just so you can put your ballot in the box and "be counted"? I know our voting system is ambiguous and complex, but despite it's faults, you should be thanking God that you live in a country where you have the privilege to go to the polls and, even if you don't like one of the party candidates, write your own gd name on the line.
(And if you're not in town, get a mail-in ballot or an absentee ballot. It's easy. I've voted more than once while living in a foreign country.)
I don't mean to sound like my father here, but I just can't believe that someone would purposely CHOOSE not to vote for the President of their own country if given the chance.
Now get out there and vote!!!!!

Okay, I'm done.

Mottola-Buffett wrote:On a side note.... regardless of whom you've decided you're "for" or "against" or if you're just fed up with the whole political saga between Democrats and Republicans, it saddens me when people say that they aren't going to vote!
YOU MUST VOTE - how can you be a part of this free American society and not exercise your right to vote? Do you know how many people suffered and even died just so you can put your ballot in the box and "be counted"? I know our voting system is ambiguous and complex, but despite it's faults, you should be thanking God that you live in a country where you have the privilege to go to the polls and, even if you don't like one of the party candidates, write your own gd name on the line.
(And if you're not in town, get a mail-in ballot or an absentee ballot. It's easy. I've voted more than once while living in a foreign country.)
I don't mean to sound like my father here, but I just can't believe that someone would purposely CHOOSE not to vote for the President of their own country if given the chance.
Now get out there and vote!!!!!

Okay, I'm done.

I agree with you there!

In Cali, we have a bunch of other fairly important initiative to vote on, also.
In '92, I felt like I had no horse in the race, so I picked a candidate who I felt could "effect" the eventual winner, and it really did turn out to be a vote NOT wasted.

Mottola-Buffett wrote: but I just can't believe that someone would purposely CHOOSE not to vote for the President of their own country if given the chance.
Now get out there and vote!!!!!

I don't believe there are any other initiatives on the ballot here in Georgia,there is a possibility however; I'm not sure that a write-in is counted.

I was a precinct worker for several years in OK.

voting rules and regulations vary from state to state...(let's don't talk Florida, tho, OK?)

Wino you know wrote:I think this election has been decided WAY before either V.P. candidates were chosen.
Obama will win the election thanks to the votes of the misguided ones, no matter if he chose Joe Biden or Jesus Christ himself as his running mate, while the REGULAR Americans are voting for McCain regardless of HIS running mate.

Well, I've never been proud to be irregular before, but I guess this makes me so! I can't see Palin as VP, so I'm not voting for McCain. Lived through Bush/Quayle; don't want to do it again.

Actually, I'm in the undecided column, but mind is being made up as we go along. Statements like these help me be more and more misguided every day!

About the debate, it irked me how McCain would not look at Obama, or address him at all. What's up with that? Like he didn't want to acknowledge his existence. It appeared racist to me.

carolinagirl wrote:

Wino you know wrote:I think this election has been decided WAY before either V.P. candidates were chosen.
Obama will win the election thanks to the votes of the misguided ones, no matter if he chose Joe Biden or Jesus Christ himself as his running mate, while the REGULAR Americans are voting for McCain regardless of HIS running mate.

Well, I've never been proud to be irregular before, but I guess this makes me so! I can't see Palin as VP, so I'm not voting for McCain. Lived through Bush/Quayle; don't want to do it again.

Actually, I'm in the undecided column, but mind is being made up as we go along. Statements like these help me be more and more misguided every day!

About the debate, it irked me how McCain would not look at Obama, or address him at all. What's up with that? Like he didn't want to acknowledge his existence. It appeared racist to me.

I also noticed that throughout the entire debate. McCain would not/ could not look at Obama. Did not make McCain look very good if you can't even look the guy you're supposed to be debating in the eye. Makes it look like your BS'ing your way thru your answers.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am a VERY REGULAR American. I go like clockwork everyday. Keeps me from being full of sh**.

carolinagirl wrote:

Wino you know wrote:I think this election has been decided WAY before either V.P. candidates were chosen.
Obama will win the election thanks to the votes of the misguided ones, no matter if he chose Joe Biden or Jesus Christ himself as his running mate, while the REGULAR Americans are voting for McCain regardless of HIS running mate.

Well, I've never been proud to be irregular before, but I guess this makes me so! I can't see Palin as VP, so I'm not voting for McCain. Lived through Bush/Quayle; don't want to do it again.

See my post at the bottom of page 2.
SEE, this is probably the ONLY thing I don't like about B.N., and that is, many of my better posts end up at the BOTTOM of a page, and the masses miss out on the joy of getting to read them. My apologies to you for that.
BUSH/QUALYE? Yeah, Heaven forbid if we ever get another V.P. who mis-spells a wurd or tu.
or a president who doesn't know how many states we have. (Unless, of course, he's a democrat)
And as much as I like Sarah Palin, she wouldn't have been MY first choice for V.P. either. She'd be my # 2 choice for the # 2 spot.
My first choice would've been Ann Coulter.
(Nothing wrong with ladies who LOOK like ladies).
But what won me over with Ms. Coulter was her statement a couple days after 9/11/01 when she said "We should invade THEIR countries, kill THEIR leaders, and convert them to Christianity."
GIVE 'EM HELL, ANNIE, BABY!

Actually, I'm in the undecided column, but mind is being made up as we go along. Statements like these help me be more and more misguided every day!

Undecided, you say?
Well, what better place to get fair and accurate readings on the candidates than by the myraid of professors right here at B.N.

About the debate, it irked me how McCain would not look at Obama, or address him at all. What's up with that? Like he didn't want to acknowledge his existence. It appeared racist to me.

He did look at O'Bama, but looked more at the moderator and the audience.
Vote against McCain for whatever reason you want, but don't vote against him because you think he's a racist. Because he ISN'T.
Hell, there's lots of caucasians I can't stand looking at. That doesn't make me anti-white.
(Or does it)?

Pleasin & Teasin wrote:

Wino you know wrote:......while the REGULAR Americans are voting for McCain regardless of HIS running mate.

Gee, and all this time I thought that I was a regular American.....

ya see, that's my problem with the rabid right....they want to think that only THEY are god fearing, country loving, patriotic Americans...and we cant let them get away with that kind of sh*t!!

I dont know you, Wino, but I'm here to tell you that I am as REGULAR an American as you will ever be!!

Congratulations.
That makes TWO of us who don't need Ex-Lax.

Obama has SO much more leadership time than... um.. Me maybe.. At least Palin was a GOVERNOR that actually showed up for her job unlike Obama Bin Laden who spent less than 6 months as a Senator and abstained from voting OFTEN.

Oh yea, he was a community activist with a less than desirable organization. That is a change we need

12vmanRick wrote:Obama has SO much more leadership time than... um.. Me maybe.. At least Palin was a GOVERNOR that actually showed up for her job unlike Obama Bin Laden who spent less than 6 months as a Senator and abstained from voting OFTEN.

Oh yea, he was a community activist with a less than desirable organization. That is a change we need

I don't care who you vote for, but don't be taken by a media that spins facts every which way but true.

Obama was sworn in on January 4, 2005, much more than six months ago. http://obama.senate.gov/about/During the current session he has missed 45.9% of the votes in this congress. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/cong ... s/o000167/ He voted present as a state senator 3% of the time. http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/h ... esent.html

Biden has missed 30.8% of the votes in this congress. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/cong ... s/b000444/

McCain has missed 64.1% of the votes in this congress. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/cong ... s/m000303/

Palin was sworn in on December 4, 2006 as governor of Alaska. http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.html

All of them have failed to take the political courage test at Project Vote Smart. http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490

Check the statements you hear at http://www.factcheck.org/.

Jefferson realized that we needed an educated electorate, pundits want to replace education with spin. Don't fall for it.

Wino you know wrote:

carolinagirl wrote:

Wino you know wrote:I think this election has been decided WAY before either V.P. candidates were chosen.
Obama will win the election thanks to the votes of the misguided ones, no matter if he chose Joe Biden or Jesus Christ himself as his running mate, while the REGULAR Americans are voting for McCain regardless of HIS running mate.

Well, I've never been proud to be irregular before, but I guess this makes me so! I can't see Palin as VP, so I'm not voting for McCain. Lived through Bush/Quayle; don't want to do it again.

See my post at the bottom of page 2.
SEE, this is probably the ONLY thing I don't like about B.N., and that is, many of my better posts end up at the BOTTOM of a page, and the masses miss out on the joy of getting to read them. My apologies to you for that.
BUSH/QUALYE? Yeah, Heaven forbid if we ever get another V.P. who mis-spells a wurd or tu.
or a president who doesn't know how many states we have. (Unless, of course, he's a democrat)
And as much as I like Sarah Palin, she wouldn't have been MY first choice for V.P. either. She'd be my # 2 choice for the # 2 spot.
My first choice would've been Ann Coulter.
(Nothing wrong with ladies who LOOK like ladies).
But what won me over with Ms. Coulter was her statement a couple days after 9/11/01 when she said "We should invade THEIR countries, kill THEIR leaders, and convert them to Christianity."
GIVE 'EM HELL, ANNIE, BABY!

Actually, I'm in the undecided column, but mind is being made up as we go along. Statements like these help me be more and more misguided every day!

Undecided, you say?
Well, what better place to get fair and accurate readings on the candidates than by the myraid of professors right here at B.N.

About the debate, it irked me how McCain would not look at Obama, or address him at all. What's up with that? Like he didn't want to acknowledge his existence. It appeared racist to me.

He did look at O'Bama, but looked more at the moderator and the audience.
Vote against McCain for whatever reason you want, but don't vote against him because you think he's a racist. Because he ISN'T.
Hell, there's lots of caucasians I can't stand looking at. That doesn't make me anti-white.
(Or does it)?

Thanks for pointing out your post at the bottom of page 2. I HATE missing out on the joy of reading your best posts, Wino!!!

Good points... I'm with CitCat, though... still trying to decide the lesser of two evils. Either one would have shortcomings and either one would do a good job.

12vmanRick wrote:Obama has SO much more leadership time than... um.. Me maybe.. At least Palin was a GOVERNOR that actually showed up for her job unlike Obama Bin Laden who spent less than 6 months as a Senator and abstained from voting OFTEN.

Oh yea, he was a community activist with a less than desirable organization. That is a change we need

I like what Susan Sarandon said a smile, "Jesus was a community organizer, and Pontius Pilate was a governor."

carolinagirl wrote:Thanks for pointing out your post at the bottom of page 2. I HATE missing out on the joy of reading your best posts, Wino!!!

No problem. That's why you have me.

Good points... I'm with CitCat, though... still trying to decide the lesser of two evils. Either one would have shortcomings and either one would do a good job.

All I can tell you if you're really undecided is to go with the one who most closely represents your views.
No candidate will ever represent 100% of your views 100% of the time, but if one represents 60% of your views and the other only 40%, obviously, you go with the 60% guy. Because one of them WILL be our next president. You should want the one that reflects MORE of what you stand for.
They're BOTH good people (even that old white haired white guy-not many people here could go remotely what he went through-not opinion, but a fact).
I just disagree with one, and agree with the other-that's why I'm voting for HIM.

P.S.-Jimmy Carter (UGH) was ALSO a governor.