• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Final Debate Thread

ProbeX said:
This pic would have been even worse (or even more fun), had McCain been looking directly ahead (at Obama) when he made that face.
Click to expand...

I don't know if that would be funnier, it sort of looks to me like he's looking at his butt ....





...hope that's not a Rule 8 word (I think arse is ok so maybe butt is too).
 
Last edited:
ZenFountain said:
If he tries to shift gears into something else it will only look like another desperate move and play into Obama's attack that he is erratic.
Click to expand...

You mean like Reverend Wright, Act II? Some of Mac's supporters are already putting pressure on him to go there.

If he goes there, fasten your seatbelts, dear McCain supporters, you will be riding the rickety, old rollercoaster called Crash and Burn.

If he rehashes Wright, McCain's revenge won't be a kneecapping by Palin's weird religious associations, but still, he'll likely lose Independent votes.

Also, the 93% of Obama's Black supporters, will grow to about 97%.
 
Sasha said:
I don't know if that would be funnier, it sort of looks to me like he's looking at his butt ....





...hope that's not a Rule 8 word (I think arse is ok so maybe butt is too).
Click to expand...

See to me, it looks like he's staring off to the side, about eye-level with Obama's back. If he were looking at Obama's butt, I'd probably write it off as a senior moment, with McCain confusing Obama with Palin :D
 
I have not seen a transcript and was unsure of a few things I heard. Did McCain say something to the effect of "I have no litmus test on Roe v. Wade for candidates for the Supreme Court," followed almost immediately by "Anyone who would vote for Roe v. Wade is obviously unqualified"?

CT

ETA: Eek! I just posted in the Politics forum. I'd better lie down.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThanking said:
I have not seen a transcript and was unsure of a few things I heard. Did McCain say something to the effect of "I have no litmus test on Roe v. Wade for candidates for the Supreme Court," followed almost immediately by "Anyone who would vote for Roe v. Wade is obviously unqualified"?
Click to expand...


Hard to tell exactly what McCain meant. Here's his comment in context, as if it helps...

SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's stop there and go to another question. And this one goes to Senator McCain. Senator McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Senator Obama, you believe it shouldn't.

Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue? Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: I would never and have never in all the years I've been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That's not appropriate to do.

SCHIEFFER: But you don't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

MCCAIN: I thought it was a bad decision. I think there were a lot of decisions that were bad. I think that decisions should rest in the hands of the states. I'm a federalist. And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test. Now, let me say that there was a time a few years ago when the United States Senate was about to blow up. Republicans wanted to have just a majority vote to confirm a judge and the Democrats were blocking in an unprecedented fashion.

We got together seven Republicans, seven Democrats. You were offered a chance to join. You chose not to because you were afraid of the appointment of, quote, "conservative judges."

I voted for Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg. Not because I agreed with their ideology, but because I thought they were qualified and that elections have consequences when presidents are nominated. This is a very important issue we're talking about.

Senator Obama voted against Justice Breyer and Justice Roberts on the grounds that they didn't meet his ideological standards. That's not the way we should judge these nominees. Elections have consequences. They should be judged on their qualifications. And so that's what I will do.

I will find the best people in the world -- in the United States of America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.

SCHIEFFER: But even if it was someone -- even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?

MCCAIN: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.
Click to expand...
 
I found this phrase of his fascinating
Elections have consequences. They should be judged on their qualifications.
Click to expand...
Contradiction, no? If judges are judged on their qualifications then election don't have consequences, it doesn't matter who is president.
 
MCCAIN: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.
Click to expand...

Does that make some sort of sense that I'm not getting?
 
Sasha said:
Does that make some sort of sense that I'm not getting?
Click to expand...

If you watch the video, or listen to it, his voice inflections seemed to indicate that anyone who supported Roe v. Wade wasn't qualified...but I seriously doubt that's what he meant. After all, he stated before and after this that he would not use a litmus test. And McCain would never "parse words" the way he accused Obama of doing with his "eloquence."
 
Isn't abormal blinking supposed to be a sign of lying? I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere.
 
SnuggleSmacks said:
If you watch the video, or listen to it, his voice inflections seemed to indicate that anyone who supported Roe v. Wade wasn't qualified...but I seriously doubt that's what he meant. After all, he stated before and after this that he would not use a litmus test. And McCain would never "parse words" the way he accused Obama of doing with his "eloquence."
Click to expand...
No sirree. That's just straight talk. Sometimes it comes out one side of his mouth, and sometimes, often in the very next sentence in fact, it comes out the other. But it always comes out straight.
 
DavidJames said:
I found this phrase of his fascinatingContradiction, no? If judges are judged on their qualifications then election don't have consequences, it doesn't matter who is president.
Click to expand...

Not if there are many more qualified candidates than positions. What he seems to be saying is that any judicial candidate that is qualified should be ratified by the senate regardless of ideology, whereas Obama feels it is legitimate for the senate to reject a qualified candidate because the majority of senators disagree with the candidate's judicial philosophy.

Since all the constitution says is "with the advice and consent of the senate," I would say that each senator can interpret the clause as he or she sees fit.

As to who McCain would nominate, he seems to be saying that he would nominate a pro-Roe judge if he were a strict constructionist, but since no strict constructionist would support Roe he won't be appointing any Roe supporting judges. But not because they support Roe, but because they are not strict constructionists.

ETA: Kinda like saying you don't discriminate and will hire people of any religion, as long as they have accepted Jesus as their personal savior. ;)
 
Last edited:
gdnp said:
Not if there are many more qualified candidates than positions. What he seems to be saying is that any judicial candidate that is qualified should be ratified by the senate regardless of ideology, whereas Obama feels it is legitimate for the senate to reject a qualified candidate because the majority of senators disagree with the candidate's judicial philosophy.

Since all the constitution says is "with the advice and consent of the senate," I would say that each senator can interpret the clause as he or she sees fit.

As to who McCain would nominate, he seems to be saying that he would nominate a pro-Roe judge if he were a strict constructionist, but since no strict constructionist would support Roe he won't be appointing any Roe supporting judges. But not because they support Roe, but because they are not strict constructionists.

ETA: Kinda like saying you don't discriminate and will hire people of any religion, as long as they have accepted Jesus as their personal savior. ;)
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm not following. What do you think McCain meant when he said "Elections have consequences"? I'm sure he didn't mean simply that presidents select a court candidate.
 
BenBurch said:
Well, we NEED to have a breeder cycle unless we want to move to Thorium plants due to the limitations of the Uranium supply.
Click to expand...

Magnox is not a fast breeder design. It is simply a publicaly availible design that happens to be a good choice if you want to run an illicit (or even an above board) weapons program.

But the big issue is that we lack the industrial capacity to make reactor vessels for large plants. We've shut down too much of our steel and heavy manufacturing to do it here. The countries who CAN do it don't have the EXCESS capacity to make very many of them for us over what they are already committed to make. SO we need to build thousands of SMALL reactors if we want to move ahead with this.
Click to expand...

With the demand for a few hundred plants rebuilding the industrial capacity is unlikely to present a major problem.
 
DavidJames said:
Sorry, I'm not following. What do you think McCain meant when he said "Elections have consequences"? I'm sure he didn't mean simply that presidents select a court candidate.
Click to expand...

I think that is exactly what he meant. The president is the decider. The role of the senate is to reject someone who is not qualified and rubber stamp anyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom