I'll be damned myself, I give to charities of my choice alot, but lazy people who panhandle and on welfare. No sir.
Sorry, that was a sarcastic remark. The staunch Republicans here make it seem that anyone questioning the Republican point of view is 100% for supporting lazy asses. I certainly don't condone overly funding lazy asses, and I imagine there are a large number of Democrats that disagree with Republicans but don't want to endlessly support lazy asses either. I do think there is something to be said about private welfare programs, like Churches and such, but the government probably needs to bridge the gap or provide supplemental aid until private welfare aid can help sufficiently. Not all receiving help are undeserving and costs of living have gone up pushing more families below or closer to the poverty line. I kind of like the idea of tough love welfare to force those on the lowest rungs that won't help themselves to change, but that may not fly too well with freedom. But I really think pillaging going on at the top of the ladder is cutting into the funds those of us at the bottom have to work with.
Maybe he cheated, maybe he didn't. None of us will never know. My suspicion was that, since McCain does nothing but these town hall style meetings, he has probably been asked these exacty questions hundreds of times before. None of Warren's questions were from way out in left field. Obama runs a much more tightly controlled and rehearsed campaign event. He rarely gets challenged with tough questions and gets rattled when he needs to go "off script". These are my opinions, but a couple of past events will help support this claim. Remember how bad he looked in his last debate with Hillary, where he quickly announced the next day that there would be no more debates?
This is an old conservative vs. liberal argument that has not been re-hashed on here in a long time. Do you think that there is a finite amount of money to be made in America? If so, does this mean that you think that people who make a huge amount of money are taking away from the total pie, meaning everyone else gets a smaller piece?
Dont leave out the rest of the facts of the matter that one of the moderators was a former Clinton chief of staffer. The interview was a huge advantage for Clinton who didnt get asked tuff question. Just thought Id include that since you mistakenly left it out. :thumb:
So George Steph (not even going to try to spell his name) should not have asked Obama, who is running for leader of the free world, the question about his association with a confessed unrepenting domestic terrorist, since it was getting heavy airplay on all the major media outlets, including his own, that week? The primary debates typically asked questions about current events, that was a big news story that week. That was unfair? Please answer this. What is fair to ask of Obama? He seems to whine an awful lot about things being out of bounds and unfair. I read a lot of your posts and you constantly make great points and make me see things from the other point of view. You can't tell me, as a man, that hearing another grown man whine and cry as much as Obama does about people picking on him does not make you want to throw the dodge ball at him even harder. I really don't believe that he thought he was going to need to put on his big boy panties in this election.
And those are the issues Americans care about, maybe you do, but you can watch Young & Restless for bs like that. I care more about the economy, war, and other national issues. Its fair enough, but it wasnt fair on both sides. Why didnt he ask Clinton about her associations, to the radicals she did business with and for during the 60s and 70s. Whine, I seem to remember Clinton whining first about being treated unfairly in the debates. Im just helping you out, you seem to keep leaving out key components of your argument.
Hey, I added a paragraph to my last post while you were posting. Sorry about that. I am, by no means, a Clinton apologists. I just think whining and crying after every tough questions makes people question whether or not you have a pair. I do think that people care about whether or not their president hobnobs with terrorists. What kills me is that he did a great job of answering the question, but whined about it the next day anyway. Most people remember and know all about the Clinton's associations. We don't know this guy, that's why people would care. He didn't even get any tough questions from Warren, but people were out the next day whining and crying that McCain "cheated". This man wants to be taking seriously, but refuses to participate in forums that he cannot control. I work in PR for a living, and completely understand the importance of controlling the message, but come on. Calling a pastor a cheater will never make political hay with anyone east of San Francisco. Does he think the press corps in Washington is going to be hand selected? Does he think that they will draw from a hat of "approved questions"?
He didnt call the pastor a cheater, that was reported by the NYT and Washington Post the same night of the debate. But you are right, i believe he should grow thicker skin when it comes to the press. But I cant blame him for fighting against the smears that people constantly throw at him, you may call it whining but I call it fighting back. Obamas problem to me is that he puts to much faith in the run of the mill American voter. People would rather watch, Jerry Springer and Maury Povich than research a rumor about a presidential candidate. People believe crap that they here or they desire to believe because of there bias against the person to begin with. Thats his main problem to me, get tougher would be my advice to him.
I realized right after I pressed "save" that I should have clarified that he never called Warren a cheater, it's just the way that it came off. Great point on the run of the mill voter. My opinion is that most of Obama's supporters are from the 2 extremes of the education spectrum, with the majority from the lower rung (Obama supporters, If you are reading this post on the internet and know how to use a political forum, assume that I think you are from the other extreme of the education spectrium :grin: ). You are correct, these people are not going to go to the same lengths of effort that you are going through to parse fact from fiction. Which makes me wonder why he is so afraid to address these rumors and myths during debates, where the casual voter may be watching. Casual voters don't watch the commentary shows every night, they are watching Springer and the Y&R, like you mentioned.
