Thank you for conceeding the point. I am glad that you agree that obama's plan on the economy is not a good one and that there are a great many flaws in it.
I didn't "conceed" anything. Obama's plan "on" the economy is a great one, and there are certainly not a "great many" flaws in it.
not really when asked something that he is uncomfortable with he umm's and ah's all over creation. he would still fail a speech class if he did that. that is the number 1 no no in speech class or even debate class. it is better to wait and think about it and get your thoughts together than to umm and ahh. it just makes you look like you don't know what you are talking about.
i can say the sky is green does that make it so? no it does. there is a flaw in thinking that he isn't going to raise taxes.
first off he is getting rid of the bush tax cuts. which will be the biggest tax raise in history. you also have to realize that with the bush tax cuts he created 2 new brackets. before you had 15%, 20%, 25% 35%. with bush's tax cuts you now have 10%, 15% 20% 25% 30% and 35%. so effectively lower income people recieved a 5% tax cut right off the bat. on the other end some people saw a 5% increase in their taxes.
obama is going to do away with that. so we go back to 15% 20% 25% and 35%. that is just income tax as well. there is no way that obama can pay for his 800 billion in new spending not including his healthcare system with out raising taxes on everyone. there is just no way. he can say all he wants to but reality is different.
He specifically said that if bin laden was found with his commanders and pakistan couldn't or refused to get them that he would bomb them anyway.
that is just moronic to send fighters into a country that is suppose to be an ally and bomb them without their permission.
star wars brought the USSR to the table for sure. however it was abandoned at that same table as well. reading a book on that right now. it was a huge concession for reagan to give up. however he did in terms of getting a truce going with the USSR.
Should I give you a spam infraction, or a flame infraction? Decisions, decisions...
The debate was very even, but foreign policy is supposed to be McCain's expertise. McCain was supposed to win this debate. Obama's goal was to present himself as a strong possible commander-in-chief and as someone very knowledgeable in foreign affairs, and he certainly did that tonight.
The debate was very even, but foreign policy is supposed to be McCain's expertise. McCain was supposed to win this debate. Obama's goal was to present himself as a strong possible commander-in-chief and as someone very knowledgeable in foreign affairs, and he certainly did that tonight.
For what it's worth, this has only happened 3 times in the past 200 years. 2 of those times were in the 1800s
Yes, but it should never happen.
We're not a direct democracy and never have been. Popular vote does not pick the president. The electoral college does.
Thanks, Captain Obvious! The debate isn't over what we are, it's over what we should be. Popular vote does not pick the president now, but I, and many others, believe it should. While an indirect democracy may have been necessary 200 years ago, it certainly isn't now, since the electors are listening to only the people, and thus they have absolutely no purpose.
The electoral college is horrible. It causes many voters to be disenfranchised- people in Massachusetts and Texas have no say, as those states are going to be Democrat or Republican no matter what. People in Ohio suddenly become far more powerful than their California friends.
Also, a candidate who wins the popular vote in a democracy should not be losing an election. Maybe if the electors actually voted based on their views the EC would be fine, but they just listen to the majority of voters; electors have become only a symbol. In 2004, Kerry was very close to winning the election despite being behind in the popular vote by three points; a candidate who gets three percent less of the electoral vote winning the election is crazy.
He doesn't need to be a classic good guy. The Rock, Stone Cold, and The Undertaker were antiheroes. MVP can continue to be his cocky self and still be an effective face.
Getting over with the fans is one thing. Being completely beloved by the fans is another. The closest thing the WWE has had to that since The Rock left is John Cena, and even he is hated by a sizable portion of wrestling fans. So perhaps "over" is the wrong term here; tons of wrestlers are over, but the fans, for the most part, don't care about any of them. The current mic skills in the WWE suck, and because of this fans are losing interest. Giving a great interview is becoming a lost art, and the only current wrestler who I've seen do this successfully lately is MVP. Because of this, I find it absolutely crucial that they find some way to make him a face.
Exactly. I think the WWE needs look long and hard not for a good wrestler, but for an unbelievable speaker. There are a few wrestlers in the WWE with good mic skills, but they are being underutilized in terms of interviews (MVP gets like one interview every four weeks). The Rock was made by his interviews, not his in-ring ability (although that was great, too).
Plus, Clinton is part of the right-wing DNC faction of the Democratic party. He'd be right at home in the GOP, if it hadn't been taken over by its extremist faction.
This is untrue. The views of Bill and Hillary coincide virtually perfectly with those of the Democratic Party as a whole (social issues, taxes, the war, etc.).
I do agree with the above posters that the parties have jumped on this as a partisan thing, but it's really no different from anything else in America's history.
Good Raw tonight. The steel cage match was great, Kane vs. Mysterio was good, and the promo with Batista, JBL, Santino, Beth, and Orton in the ring at the same time was really well done, and Batista did a great job of getting the crowd behind him. The Charlie Haas gimmick was good again imo, but the crowd didn't cheer nearly as much as it did last week.
You are aware of the story of how Lincoln's assassination was orchestrated by a member of his cabinet?
What? I've never heard this before....
Many members of Lincoln's cabinet loved him. I know at least two of them were seen crying for days after his death (I've forgotten which ones, though).
And the comment about "taking out Pakistan" was actually targeted at Al Qaeda, or at least that's how I interpreted it.
I didn't "conceed" anything. Obama's plan "on" the economy is a great one, and there are certainly not a "great many" flaws in it.
Should I give you a spam infraction, or a flame infraction? Decisions, decisions...
Yes, but it should never happen.
Thanks, Captain Obvious! The debate isn't over what we are, it's over what we should be. Popular vote does not pick the president now, but I, and many others, believe it should. While an indirect democracy may have been necessary 200 years ago, it certainly isn't now, since the electors are listening to only the people, and thus they have absolutely no purpose.
Also, a candidate who wins the popular vote in a democracy should not be losing an election. Maybe if the electors actually voted based on their views the EC would be fine, but they just listen to the majority of voters; electors have become only a symbol. In 2004, Kerry was very close to winning the election despite being behind in the popular vote by three points; a candidate who gets three percent less of the electoral vote winning the election is crazy.
Warning for Backseat Moderation
This is untrue. The views of Bill and Hillary coincide virtually perfectly with those of the Democratic Party as a whole (social issues, taxes, the war, etc.).
I do agree with the above posters that the parties have jumped on this as a partisan thing, but it's really no different from anything else in America's history.
What? I've never heard this before....
Many members of Lincoln's cabinet loved him. I know at least two of them were seen crying for days after his death (I've forgotten which ones, though).