Spending cuts must happen and McCain emphasized his history of fighting for them in Congress. He even suggested the possibility of a spending freeze. Obama refused to name anything in particular; he can't because he's a socialist. His voters wouldn't stand for it. :hihi: He reminds me of the Russian and Chinese governments as portrayed in Tom Clancy fiction. When presented with economic realities, socialists pull the blinders down over their heads and proceed with their previous plans. Chicken Little Syndrome 101. But... Barry... there isn't any money to give health care to every American....
Did I miss the real debate? The one I saw hadMcCain clearly delineating his plan to cut spending, earmarks, even to the point of a spending freeze. All Obama did was blame Bush. Obama got punked on the "Discussions with preconditions" sublect and he was clearly out of his league (not unlike Red) in understanding the need to finish in Iraq before commiting all resources in Afghanistan. This debate wasn't even close and if white people weren't afraid of being thought of as racist,the polls would show it.
US forces on Philippines surrendered in WWII to Japan. Lots died in the Bataan death march, but they all would have died if they hadn't surrendered. It was the correct decision. That's why they pulled MacArthur out of the Phillipines prior to the final battle, it was understood that the force could not maintain its position. Surrender has been done, and wisely so. There were no good options on the Philippines, only bad and worse. The US lost the first battle of the Phillipines, came back to win the war. Lee surrendered to Grant, there comes a time. We didn't win in VN, just left, knowing the south would fall. There comes a time. This was a loss rather than a technical surrender, but we didn't achieve our objective. It's not what you plan for, nor what you want. Given we spend about 6 times annually compared to our nearest competitor, Russia, we should win when we take the field.
Surrendering in battle is a General's right, and typically it's done to avoid further losses and live to fight another day. Surrendering a WAR without being BEATEN is completely different.
In the interest of letting the thread get back to it's appointed topic (the debate), I'm going to let you live to fight another day. But you have no idea what you're talking about.
Well he did outline a cut in spending but he didn't seem to hammer it home to me. Reality is that McCain is not that smooth of a debater, but his campaign will focus on these differences in the coming week. Obama did not say he would drop a penny of his 200+ billion/yr increase in the budget but I don't feel like McCain took advantage of it. He also really doesn't ever do much except say how he was against the war to begin with. That doesn't impress me anymore because the next president will have to deal with the war regardless of where he was 5 yrs ago. And correct me if I am wrong but didn't he take on Biden to bolster up his resume' on foreign policy? And didn't Biden vote for the war, and against the surge? Seems a bit silly to keep claiming credit for something when your partner did the opposite. However, I think for undecided voters, the messages did not get pounded home. I guess the polls on Tuesday will show one way or another.
So the fact that McCain didn't once look Obama in the eye didn't bother anyone? The whole point of this debate was to have the two candidates interact; McCain looked very unwilling to turn his head toward Obama. Obama started out that way but eventually began addressing McCain as intended.
Conversely, Intellect does not come from experience; it comes from education. Obama's education gives him the intellect McCain never possessed.
