Comments on: Weighing in Briefly on the First Presidential Debate http://punkassblog.com/2008/09/27/weighing-in-briefly-on-the-first-presidential-debate/ Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:06:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Lisa Kansas http://punkassblog.com/2008/09/27/weighing-in-briefly-on-the-first-presidential-debate/#comment-75771 Lisa Kansas Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:39:43 +0000 http://punkassblog.com/2008/09/27/weighing-in-briefly-on-the-first-presidential-debate/#comment-75771 It was the best part of the debate because it showed how amazingly out-of-touch with reality McCain is when it comes to all things warlike. Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Obama initially opposed the war, or I'd've put that in the description of why it was the best part of the debate. H. Clinton didn't oppose the war initially, and it'd have been just as cool if she'd have said it--it'd have been just as cool no matter who said it. The question was <em>lessons learned,</em>, not <em>told you so.</em> It was the best part of the debate because it showed how amazingly out-of-touch with reality McCain is when it comes to all things warlike. Doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not Obama initially opposed the war, or I’d've put that in the description of why it was the best part of the debate. H. Clinton didn’t oppose the war initially, and it’d have been just as cool if she’d have said it–it’d have been just as cool no matter who said it. The question was lessons learned,, not told you so.

]]> By: Quin http://punkassblog.com/2008/09/27/weighing-in-briefly-on-the-first-presidential-debate/#comment-75749 Quin Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:05:38 +0000 http://punkassblog.com/2008/09/27/weighing-in-briefly-on-the-first-presidential-debate/#comment-75749 Of course I'm coming to this debate from the third party perspective (ah, how nice it would have been for it to be three-way debate with McKinney or Nader in there to throw some bombs in there and make the establishment candidates uncomfortable!), but the part you're describing as "the best part" didn't really hit me as a particular high point. I'm happy that Obama initially opposed the war in Iraq. (Though let's not forget that he always mantained that we needed to fight and fight and fight in Afghanistan-- a position which follows the Democratic party line, but which is highly morally dubious itself.) But, fine, he opposed the war back when he was a local state politician; I just wish that once he'd gotten elected into a national position, he had actually continued as a voice of opposition. Instead of just saying "I'm cooler than all of you 'cuz I opposed the war before, but hey, now that we're actually IN this thing which I said was so stupid, may as well go all the way with it and flood Iraq in the blood of as many innocents as it takes until we've WON!" and voting for every request to increase funding for the war that came along. Oh, that's right, but then he wouldn't have had a chance to run for President! Silly me, only warmongers can be President. Visionary leaders who might actually offer something different from the status quo don't get to play this game. Of course I’m coming to this debate from the third party perspective (ah, how nice it would have been for it to be three-way debate with McKinney or Nader in there to throw some bombs in there and make the establishment candidates uncomfortable!), but the part you’re describing as “the best part” didn’t really hit me as a particular high point.

I’m happy that Obama initially opposed the war in Iraq. (Though let’s not forget that he always mantained that we needed to fight and fight and fight in Afghanistan– a position which follows the Democratic party line, but which is highly morally dubious itself.) But, fine, he opposed the war back when he was a local state politician; I just wish that once he’d gotten elected into a national position, he had actually continued as a voice of opposition. Instead of just saying “I’m cooler than all of you ‘cuz I opposed the war before, but hey, now that we’re actually IN this thing which I said was so stupid, may as well go all the way with it and flood Iraq in the blood of as many innocents as it takes until we’ve WON!” and voting for every request to increase funding for the war that came along.

Oh, that’s right, but then he wouldn’t have had a chance to run for President! Silly me, only warmongers can be President. Visionary leaders who might actually offer something different from the status quo don’t get to play this game.

]]> By: junk science http://punkassblog.com/2008/09/27/weighing-in-briefly-on-the-first-presidential-debate/#comment-75744 junk science Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:01:06 +0000 http://punkassblog.com/2008/09/27/weighing-in-briefly-on-the-first-presidential-debate/#comment-75744 If you have a job, haven't been in prison for the past five years, and don't have any life-threatening communicable diseases, New Zealand will probably have you. If you have a job, haven’t been in prison for the past five years, and don’t have any life-threatening communicable diseases, New Zealand will probably have you.

]]> By: Sabrina http://punkassblog.com/2008/09/27/weighing-in-briefly-on-the-first-presidential-debate/#comment-75740 Sabrina Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:20:26 +0000 http://punkassblog.com/2008/09/27/weighing-in-briefly-on-the-first-presidential-debate/#comment-75740 What are the requirements for Australia? I've been looking at new countries to live in if McCain gets elected. Europe seems pretty hard to get into, but New Zealand seems pretty friendly to ex-Americans. Australia would be cool to. What are the requirements for Australia? I’ve been looking at new countries to live in if McCain gets elected. Europe seems pretty hard to get into, but New Zealand seems pretty friendly to ex-Americans. Australia would be cool to.

]]> By: Amanda Marcotte http://punkassblog.com/2008/09/27/weighing-in-briefly-on-the-first-presidential-debate/#comment-75733 Amanda Marcotte Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:58:35 +0000 http://punkassblog.com/2008/09/27/weighing-in-briefly-on-the-first-presidential-debate/#comment-75733 I actually sympathize with both candidates on this. The question is based on a false assumption, which is that either candidate can accurately predict where our economy is going to be come January. They don't even know what version of a bailout will pass, much less how much more of our economy will collapse. To answer the question as asked would be to lie, because you can't know how you'll act when you have the power because you don't know what your problems are going to be. Which is why McCain eventually shut Lehrer down by pulling "spending freeze" out of his ass. Because McCain has no compunction about lying to get out of a bind. I actually sympathize with both candidates on this. The question is based on a false assumption, which is that either candidate can accurately predict where our economy is going to be come January. They don’t even know what version of a bailout will pass, much less how much more of our economy will collapse. To answer the question as asked would be to lie, because you can’t know how you’ll act when you have the power because you don’t know what your problems are going to be.

Which is why McCain eventually shut Lehrer down by pulling “spending freeze” out of his ass. Because McCain has no compunction about lying to get out of a bind.

]]>