By mwm

September 29, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this

The failures of your side are well documented. You choose to ignore facts due to being obliged to support your leader, Bush. What has occured since the illegal war in Iraq is a culmination of failures propegated by the republicans and their attempts to continue said failures. Including wars based upon lies; costing billions of dollars and 4000+ lives, cover ups and protection of criminals within the Bush administration; including outing of a CIA agent and secret energy policies, attempts to privatize social security, when businesses are failing and people are losing their retirements, no interest in changing the health care system; because lobbyists control that issue, McCain’s campaign manager scoring over $500,000 from Freddy Mac, and many more facts that show the immoral activities of Republicans… A congressman text messaging kids for immoral purposes, another member of congress looking for gay sex in an airport and, the head of the evangelicals going for gay sex and drugs. It is not that capitolism failed, it was criminalized. There was no regulation and now, our financial market may be socialized. Sometimes oversight and regulations are good. And yes, even a small amount of socialism… But, not because a bunch of people got rich at the expense of the poor. There were those that got in way over their heads and there were those conned by lenders. It is time to change those in govt. And, that would include removal of the republicans from high office. So, the only option for change is Obama. McSame and caribou barbie are incapable of restoring our great nation

By TRS

September 29, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

MWM - it appears the untruths, based on your own VP candidate’s comments, are eminating from you! Your coralation that no WMD = a lie is simply doesn’t hold water. Its like saying the sun shined yesterday therefore that proves global warming. There is a difference between being wrong based on bad intel and a lie. Your stubbonness and bias just won’t let you see the difference between fact and opinion. Besides, I think you really enjoy stirring the pot, calling people liars and creating division - at least your comments seem to reflect that. What I don’t understand is your boring repetition. You have added little to the debate except the same repetitive stuff. We get it - you don’t like social conservatives, you don’t like Bush and you don’t like evangelical Christians. Seems there are more folks you don’t like than you do. Your continued repetituous comments add nothing that hasn’t been heard time and time again. How about an original idea or comment? How about supporting your candidate rather than railing against everything else? In terms of socialism, you should know that it all began when the Democrats made Fannie and Freddie their personal play pens in the ’90s, eliminating oversight and demagoging any regulatory control when it was sought by McCain and others in ‘05. In the process they enriched their friends, Johnson, Pierce and Gurelich to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. But then, that seems OK with you because their on “your side” - corruption is acceptable then - right? Based on these “well intentioned Democrats” they set in motion something which we might call “universal house care” - burying people in debt they could not afford. There is blame on the Republicans and the free market as well but the root cause goes back to improper government intervention in the free market via Freddie and Fanny. Capitalism didn’t fail - it was prevented from working as it should. Now, an ugly government bailout is needed. In essence, those that caused the problems are now trying to fix it. Throw them all out and move Washinton DC to Hayes, Kansas and only have sessions in the heat of the summer. Put a fence around it to keep the lobbyists out (both left and right) lets start over.

By mwm

September 29, 2008 5:47 AM | Link to this

TRS, you have no fact based information and never will. Verifiable, physical evidence of the existence of nuclear devices in iraq does not exist. And never existed prior to the war in Iraq. Your “facts and figures” are horse dung. The lies, deceptions and propaganda used by the Bush administration are a matter of recored record. (recorded record) Unless the Bush administration can put the “so called” Iraqi WMD on display, they are liars. This election is not about the dual issue evangelical thought process - anti-abortion and anti-gay. Bush was both of those and proceeded to be one of the most immoral and unethical presidents in modern times. Being anti abortion then, supporting and pushing for a war that is based upon lies is hypocritical. And, social conservatives must think it grand that our financial markets have become socialized. Our county is getting the worst parts of socialism.. Thanks to a social conservative administration.

By Bob S

September 28, 2008 10:14 PM | Link to this

Regarding the polls Polls told us that George Bush twice, Ronald Reagan twice,GW Bush all were beat by their opponents in the first debate.

By Bob S

September 28, 2008 10:13 PM | Link to this

Regarding the polls Polls told us that George Bush twice, Ronald Reagan twice,GW Bush all were beat by their opponents in the first debate.

By TRS

September 28, 2008 9:00 PM | Link to this

Lets see, no nuclear intentions - what did ol’ Joe Biden say about that on Meet the Press in April of ‘07? Why here it is: “The threat [Saddam Hussein] presented was that, if Saddam was left unfettered, which I said during that period, for the next five years with sanctions lifted and billions of dollars into his coffers, then I believed he had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon not by building it, by purchasing it. I also believed he was a threat in that he was every single solitary U.N. resolution which he agreed to abide by, which was the equivalent of a peace agreement at the United Nations, after he got out of after we kicked him out of Kuwait, he was violating. Now, the rules of the road either mean something or they don’t. The international community says we’re going to enforce the sanctions we placed or not. And what was the international community doing? The international community was weakening. They were pulling away.” Also he said “on Husseins WMDs: Well, the point is, it turned out they didnt, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.” Wonder what that 600 tons of yellow cake was that was taken from Iraq and recently sold to Canada - Saddam’ paperweight? Not anticipating the “what if’s is what brought us 9/11. While you may advocate waiting to be attacked and allowing innocent people to die just to be sure our response is “just”, most folks believe there is no justice in that, not even Senator Biden. If Ol’ Joe is the expert you claim him to be, it appears either he’s mistaken or you are. He’s certainly privileged to alot more high level information and his credability is much higher. As for evangelicals, after reading MWM’s comments, who’s narrow minded? While I am no great supporter of Pat Robinson and Rod Parsley check out their outreach to disaster relief and genocide. They have expended many dollars and donated much time in those causes as have many others. Many evangelical oranizations and churchs participated in helping Katrina victims rebuild and the list goes on. It seems you are under the mistaken impression that only social action liberal Christians care for others; yet, what do those famous facts show? Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household. Conservatives donate more time and give more blood. Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush. Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average. In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent. People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition. Certainly liberal Christian organizations do much good; but, the idea that evangelicals are a bunch of tight fisted, non caring people who are only focused on one of two issues is simply inaccurate and a product of your bias. If you want to hold yourself up lie the praying Pharisee in Matt 18 as the only “correct” believe, that is your privilege but it sure doesn’t express the nature of the One who you claim to believe in. As for hyprocracy, you mock those believe abortion is wrong, perhaps one of the greatest social justice issues of our day and at the same time express more compassion for those who commit hanus crimes than those who are victims of it Finally, using your criteria for hatred, disagreement with an action or postion, I guess since you disagree with President Bush and basically all Republicans, then you must hate them.

By keakle

September 28, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

I’m afraid that - regardless of I may feel about the issues or who ‘won’ the debate - John McCain showed me why he should NOT be president. While we may disagree with Obama, there is no excuse for rudeness to a man many Americans do support. How can a man bring our country together if he cannot be civil to his rival? John McCain refused to even glance at Obama let alone address him directly. When you add to this the historic importance of this event - that 40 years ago 2 people were killed in riots to keep African Americans from attending the University where we now had a debate with the first major party African American nominee - it was important for the white candidate to acknowledge history. Mr. McCain not only didn’t acknowledge this historic occasion, he didn’t acknowledge the presence of his African-American rival at ALL. When asked by the moderator to address his opponent directly his response was “Do you think I can’t hear him?!” This is not only RUDE, it smacks of blatant racism. I, personally, was embarrassed and ashamed of McCain’s behavior.

By Jim

September 28, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

I felt Obama was nothing but class. He has a clear grasp of the issues facing most Americans, while McCain, who talks a good show, is really out of touch. Look, McCain’s cowboy approach will not work in a global culture.While McCain had some touching stories, they are always looking back at the past. I also look at how McCain has conducted his campaign, and it smells of George Bush. His inner circle, his tactics, his approach, all from Bush’s playbook. The other problem McCain has is Sarah Palin. The Genie comes out of the bottle Thursday night, and McCain’s lack of judgment will be exposed.

By mwm

September 28, 2008 8:22 AM | Link to this

The war in Iraq was and is based upon the lies, deceptions and propaganda of the Bush administration. The WMD’s never existed in Iraq. (specifically the nuclear devices that Bush and his henchmen professed to exist) Al Queda did not exist in Iraq prior to the war. That is a lie. Sadaam Hussein never corroborated with Al Queda or Bin Ladin. The “what ifs” is a line of garbage. Fact based information and logic override “feely evangelicals” Those that are anti-abortion and yet, support the death penalty and wars based upon lies are hypocrites. Those that hate gays because of religion are bigot and hypocrites. The evangelicals are narrow minded. And, acutally split in their own ranks. The younger evangelicals see the hypocracy of their own religions and are opting for Obama. Palin is nothing more than ornamental. She is an idiot. She was selected because of her anti-abortion stand. Not really a concern in this election. McCain at 72 year old, is only qualified to live in Sun City. Besides, the thought of Palin being in charge, scares a majority of americans… Including republicans.

By James

September 28, 2008 12:19 AM | Link to this

McCain was a verbal bully.>.. You mean like a bully in grade school? What’s the matter with you? Obama showed during the debate that he is clearly the more dignified,articulate, presidential candidate and leader.>… If you or anyone vote for an inexperienced smooth operator as Commander in Chief, who is a pro homosexual, pro murder by abortion liberal, over a proven leader is sad. Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism>… You cannot be right because you don’t know that Al Queda would have taken over Iraq if we hadn’t gone there, and that IS A DANGER TO OUR SECURITY. Obama was seen cool and presidential.>… Like I said, you could care less if the guy was the anti-christ, at least he’s cool right? somebody who doesn’t understand complex issues fail to work when your opponent keeps giving complex answers to questions?>.. Obama is an unproven smooth operator, that’s it! Or, the fact that the war in Iraq was lie based>… This is a lie, even Hillary Clinton thought Saddam had wmd’s, and you didn’t know beyond the shadow of a doubt that he didn’t have them. What if he did have nukes and al queda got them, then what? “stuck” with the inexperienced Palin.>… She has more experience and better judgment than Obama or Biden. Don’t be deceived Ohioans, not only is Obama not qualified to be President, he should be forbidden to serve in any government office, as he is friends with a known enemy of the United States, William Ayers. Since a govt. worker cannot get a security clearance with associations like that, Obama is disqualified from being President, and getting a security clearance. McCain will bring up Ayers at the last debate, which will be Obama’s downfall. McCain will win most of the 30 million evangelical Christians who have been on the sidelines. McCain will win OH, PA, FL, and Virginia.

By Mark

September 27, 2008 10:42 PM | Link to this

Sparks ruled himself out as an expert when he declared McCain the winner.The debate was like setting next to a drunk in a bar and he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room and start brow beating and hogging the conversation by talking over you and being verbally aggresive.McCain was a verbal bully.Sparks is way out of his league when watching debates. Maybe he would be more, comfortable at a dog fight.

By G. Brunner

September 27, 2008 10:12 PM | Link to this

What matters the most? How a candidate does in a debate, or what ideas and leadership are shown over the campaign. I don’t want a president with chirisma, I want one with experience.

By Phil

September 27, 2008 9:50 PM | Link to this

Obama showed during the debate that he is clearly the more dignified,articulate, presidential candidate and leader. McCain did not provide accurate, clear answers. He was inarticulate and seemed to be out of touch with reality.

By Obama Supporter

September 27, 2008 9:24 PM | Link to this

Randy Sparks is literally spinning the debate for McCain. Polls have shown for years now that more people think it was a mistake to go into Iraq than support the war and that most people do not think that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, Afganistan is. I can’t wait to read that Randy Sparks calls Sarah Palin the winner of the VP debate and that Obama lost the economy debates. McCain was seen shifty, didn’t look at Obama once and came across mean hearted despite his stories. Obama was seen cool and presidential. At worst it was a draw at best Obama wins the debate.

By Kevin S.

September 27, 2008 9:12 PM | Link to this

Apparently, the first polls after the debate show that undecided voters think Obama won: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26915336/ If those results bear out over the next few days, you have to wonder if McCain picked the wrong point to hammer home. Does hammering your opponent as somebody who doesn’t understand complex issues fail to work when your opponent keeps giving complex answers to questions?

By james

September 27, 2008 9:07 PM | Link to this

Obamas lack of experiece showed.He was not giving a speach that someone wrote for him. Iwas undecided now I am voting for McCain

By red

September 27, 2008 9:02 PM | Link to this

The posters here must be the editors of the DDN….or the Dayton Disaster News.

By mwm

September 27, 2008 6:31 PM | Link to this

McCain did not want to talk about the failures of the Bush administration. Or, the fact that the war in Iraq was lie based, ill conceived and mismanaged. The “surge” is a joke. The factions in Iraq have nothing but time. This so-called surge will be short lived. McCain envisions a 100 year occupation. Basically, an extension of the US in the middle east. Part of the Woolfowitz doctrine. See “Project for a new American Century” think tank. If McCain were elected, it would be an extension of the Bush /Cheney/neocon ideology. The middle class would suffer. And, if McCain were elected, expect a draft within the first year. No joke! The first debate was essentially a win for Obama. He did not lose any ground. McCain, on the other hand, has already lost.

By Tina Fey

September 27, 2008 6:11 PM | Link to this

McCain will be just like Bush if elected. And if something were to happen to him (he is 72!!) then we would be “stuck” with the inexperienced Palin.

By tammy lin

September 27, 2008 3:46 PM | Link to this

I call McCain’s way “propaganda”. In the debate all I heard from McCain is “I traveled there…” “I have seen…” I think those “traveling” and “seeing” are probably the reasons that McCain was so different from some of his party members in the Congress in the early days, but the traveling and “seeing” does not automatically qualify a person as “experienced” or “expert” on those countries. Also, in the debate, I saw Obama clearly state his idea, his plan and his logic of thinking, on the other hand, McCain basically just repeated those few words that will be used as propaganda. All in all, I think there is no substance in McCain’s words to let people know what his really plans toward key issues. I was expecting he say something meaningful since media say that is his strong suit. It is a really disappointment to see a potential president can only deliver this much, at this skin deep level.