Presidential Debate 9/26/08

[Lizzaroni]

Also known as "Happy Fun Story Time with the Presidential Candidates; or, WHO HAS MORE BRACELETS, READY FIGHT!!!"

WE MUST STOP THE HOLOCAUST.

[Smokey]

That part of the debate mentioning the Holocaust annoyed me greatly. Just because Iran's president is a raving jihadi lunatic doesn't mean that we should not talk with Iran's leaders (because Iran's president doesn't have any real authority, it all lies with the ayatollahs). The idea that our silence is a meaningful punishment is severely outdated and ridiculous in the post-Cold War era.

[Lizzaroni]

To the tune of Will Smith's "Parents Just Don't Understand":

Obama just don't understand.

[Smokey]

It also annoyed me that McCain spoke as if Obama wasn't even there, even after Jim Lehrer told them repeatedly to engage each other in back-and-forth sessions.

I also found it hilarious that Obama caught McCain by pointing out that Henry Kissinger, one of McCain's closest advisers, agreed with Obama about diplomacy with preconditions moreso than with McCain.

[JValone]

I agree we should test the waters and see if we can negotiate with Iran, but Obama needs to stop talking like sitting down with their president is actually going to accomplish anything. It's going to be a much more complicated process than that. McCain made him look foolish at that point in the debate, and for good reason, because he walked right into it.

I was actually a little disappointed with Obama's performance as a whole. He had a nice run where he pummeled McCain's record on Iraq but other than that he was fairly lackluster. He also stumbled when asked what specifically he would cut from his plan. You could tell he didn't want to elaborate, and he didn't handle it well at all. I don't feel like McCain knocked anything out of the park, except perhaps the Iran negotiation line, but he didn't get beat which was sort of surprising to me. I'd say the debate was a draw, hopefully Obama brings his A game next time.

Oh, and I'm watching Biden on CNN right now. The dude is an ass, plain and simple. He needs to shut his mouth and quit making Obama look like a jerk by association. Has Biden ever said anything about the other side without a sneer on his face or a snide comment? That seems to be at odds with Obama's overall message. He may be a hero to liberals who want to stick it to Bush and the GOP but to the common man arrogance is rarely a quality they take to.That VP pick makes less and less sense to me with each passing day. Not that Palin is any better, but I expect more from Biden.

[Lizzaroni]

Biden: gaffe, gaffe, gaffe, gaffe.

[MR EPIC]

Obama was disappointing overall IMO and surprisingly McCain made him look silly on two specific issues, which I was not expecting at all. I'll just leave it at that, because as I said in Sean's Blog thread, I have have no intention of writing paragraph after paragraph on this issue which will result in nothing but disagreement. If you know me and care to get my reaction and opinion of the debate tonight, do so over XBL or SKYPE.

[Smokey]

I agree we should test the waters and see if we can negotiate with Iran, but Obama needs to stop talking like sitting down with their president is actually going to accomplish anything. It's going to be a much more complicated process than that. McCain made him look foolish at that point in the debate, and for good reason, because he walked right into it.

I don't think so. Obama's approach is going to accomplish a hell of a lot more than McCain's will. For one thing, McCain still thinks that the Iranian president (I will not attempt to spell and thus mangle the man's name) is running things. At least Obama knows who is running things over there. The idea that our silence is a meaningful coercive tool to force Iran to capitulate to our demands is insane.

Also, McCain looked like a fool when he tried to make claims about Kissinger's statements and Obama proved him wrong time and again.

I was actually a little disappointed with Obama's performance as a whole. He had a nice run where he pummeled McCain's record on Iraq but other than that he was fairly lackluster. He also stumbled when asked what specifically he would cut from his plan. You could tell he didn't want to elaborate, and he didn't handle it well at all. I don't feel like McCain knocked anything out of the park, except perhaps the Iran negotiation line, but he didn't get beat which was sort of surprising to me. I'd say the debate was a draw, hopefully Obama brings his A game next time.

The bailout question is the one area where I believe McCain handled the original question better than Obama did. However, I think Obama handled it and the follow-up questions fairly well. He pointed out what needed to be kept despite the drain of the bailout on the federal budget, and he did address things that needed to be cut in the follow-up.

I also don't believe the debate was a draw. Obama didn't stomp McCain into the ground as he could have, but neither did he bungle things and give McCain an edge anywhere. All McCain basically did was flaunt his bipartisan record (which isn't that much to speak of when you're talking about the Bush years), call Obama naive, and talk about Reagan's outdated policies. Oh, and the veterans.

[MAX]

Maverick McCain! Maverick Palin!

[Smokey]

That bit made me chuckle a little. And vomit a little in my mouth. Mmm, meatball.

[Tanooki]

I'll just say at this point I feel that it was more or less a draw, though perhaps and just barely, slightly in the favor of McCain. I had a big thing here and just erased it for simplicity. ;) Obama finally was concise with answers and not long winded which was a boon. McCain came off lively and turns the tables when needed such as Obama and his need for no conditions to talk to the real bad leaders out there. For the most part things went well, and while a bit of waffling on some answers happened on both sides, I think on critical ones Obama did a bit more (in particular what one would cut from their plans due to this huge bailout which he refused to be decisive on.)


Smokey: McCain isn't dumb, he knows there's the Ayatollah over Ahmadinejad.

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

Uhhh, Obama absolutely massacred McCain on a topic that's supposed to be his territory. Not only did he take the commanding lead throughout the discussion, but he made McCain come off as senile, angry, insecure and full of himself at times. Obama was articulate, he answered the questions better, he stayed on point more, he kept his cool the whole time and made jabs at the right time, he showed that he's just as competent about this issue, which is something many voters had doubts about. I honestly have no idea how anybody could say that McCain prevailed in this debate; and what's important to note here is that this topic (foreign policy) was supposed to be John's saving grace after an awful few weeks, and he absolutely did nothing to strengthen his position in this race. This was his chance for a game changer and nothing came out of it in his favor. Now, we'll have to wait and see what the polls say, but honestly, anybody who thought that McCain was strong tonight was obviously not paying attention to the guy across the stage.

[MAX]

One of CNN's commentators made a good point. Tonight Mccain didn't need a slight victory. He needed a clear and massive win. Obama kept him from getting it so even a slight Mccain win would have been a loss. To bad tonight was a slight Obama win.

[JValone]

I was personally hoping for a bigger night for Obama. I though he could really pull away tonight, maybe I was expecting a bit much I don't know. I just think Biden is going to hurt their efforts in a few days with his typical (in recent days) crap and Obama needed some cushion. We'll see what happens.

[Richard Sauce]

I felt the debate was more or less a wash as far issues are concerned. Neither candidate came away a strong victory on the issues they should have, and both came off stronger than expected in their respective weak points.

But, issues are secondary to perceptions, and to me, Obama won this hands down. He came across presidential(at least while standing next to McCain), and reasonable. McCain, meanwhile, came across as dismissive, and condescending. I also felt that at several points he started to come off as the rambling old man talking about how in his day.... etc...

[Smokey]

I'll just say at this point I feel that it was more or less a draw, though perhaps and just barely, slightly in the favor of McCain. I had a big thing here and just erased it for simplicity. Obama finally was concise with answers and not long winded which was a boon. McCain came off lively and turns the tables when needed such as Obama and his need for no conditions to talk to the real bad leaders out there. For the most part things went well, and while a bit of waffling on some answers happened on both sides, I think on critical ones Obama did a bit more (in particular what one would cut from their plans due to this huge bailout which he refused to be decisive on.)


Smokey: McCain isn't dumb, he knows there's the Ayatollah over Ahmadinejad.

I disagree vehemently. McCain had nothing on Obama, nor did Obama waffle more than McCain. If anything, it was the opposite. And you only need look back at how many times he referenced Reagan for insights into his proposed policies. Reagan would send this country down the ****ter in today's world, because his answer to everything would be to outspend everyone in the hope that our economy would sustain whereas our opponents' economies would be too weak to keep up. That worked with Cold War Russia. It might work with modern-day Russia, but it sure as hell won't work on modern-day China, which pretty well owns a large portion of our economy ATM. Bush repeated Reagan's economic policies; we know how that's worked. McCain wants to go down the same path as Reagan, and that is terrible for America right now.

And if McCain knows who the real power is, why did he keep saying that why can't talk to the president if the president doesn't fulfill our preconditions? Why not refer to the ayatollahs? It is plural, BTW.

[Lizzaroni]

Anybody who says there's a clear and obvious winner is nuts. Isolating the debate, it was a lackluster draw. In the big picture, McCain just dipped, because this was supposed to be his strong suit. He didn't annihilate Obama nor did he sufficiently demonstrate how he would be a superior world leader, which was the emphasis of his campaign. At best, he showed himself to be a modern day Carmen Sandiego who doesn't even ****ing know who our NATO allies are. His giggling to the side make him sound like a douchebag, though I suspect that's unintentional and it's simply a nervous habit (much like Obama's stuttering. For a "silver tongue" he sure does have trouble figuring out how to articulate his position right off the bat.)

[MAX]

+10 for referencing Carmen Sandiego, lol

[Tanooki]

Well I guess to each their own...as is as this thread plays out you're going to get three camps here... McCain, tie(or damn near technical tie), or Obama. You can look at the facts, or sense what you sense, or just ignore reality. Whatever works.

[Smokey]

Anybody who says there's a clear and obvious winner is nuts. Isolating the debate, it was a lackluster draw. In the big picture, McCain just dipped, because this was supposed to be his strong suit. He didn't annihilate Obama nor did he sufficiently demonstrate how he would be a superior world leader, which was the emphasis of his campaign. At best, he showed himself to be a modern day Carmen Sandiego who doesn't even ****ing know who our NATO allies are. His giggling to the side make him sound like a douchebag, though I suspect that's unintentional and it's simply a nervous habit (much like Obama's stuttering. For a "silver tongue" he sure does have trouble figuring out how to articulate his position right off the bat.)

I don't think his stuttering was a nervous tic so much as it was something to get an edge on McCain to get his point across. You'll notice that he only stuttered on the open-game follow-up questions, not the lead questions where one person spoke at a time.

Jeff, I sincerely hope you didn't state those in corresponding order. If you did, I'd have to question whether you were watching the same debate as the rest of us.

[Tanooki]

I put them in logical order as most people in making a list go alphabetical. I already said I felt it was a virtual tie awhile ago.

[MAX]

Jeff watched Mccain, then muted his tv when Obama came on. He's moderate. =)

[virion]

I put them in logical order as most people in making a list go alphabetical. I already said I felt it was a virtual tie awhile ago.

obama comes before tie. alphabetically.

[Tanooki]

I know that M->O->T ...but tie isn't someones name. But if that makes you feel better that's fine too.

Real mature max, forgetting that the next time it's a week?

[MAX]

lawl

I love how Obama countered McCain's folksy bracelet story with one of his own.

I think we can all agree that Mccain looked like a corpse.

[MR EPIC]

Haha, yeah that is agreeable.

[Smokey]

I put them in logical order as most people in making a list go alphabetical. I already said I felt it was a virtual tie awhile ago.

Taken with your beliefs on how the debate went, the placement just seems a little suspicious to me.

Does anyone else think that McCain's facial cast is very similar to Bush's?

[Tanooki]

Obama also in the last half came off as a bit angry, flustered, and annoyed by what McCain was doing so I'd say for shortcomings in behavior tonight they're pretty even.

So because I think McCain just barely like 51/49%'d a virtual tie makes you suspect? Well if you care to think so, but I was just making a list.

[MAX]

I know that M->O->T ...but tie isn't someones name. But if that makes you feel better that's fine too.

Real mature max, forgetting that the next time it's a week?

Stop baiting anyone that supports Obama with your stupid opinion that 'those who listen to mccain listen to facts! those that listen to obama ignore reality!'

I have no problem calling you out for that. It's stupid, unnecessary, and baiting. Maybe you should remember that next time it's a week.

Obama also in the last half came off as a bit angry, flustered, and annoyed by what McCain was doing so I'd say for shortcomings in behavior tonight they're pretty even.

Can you blame him, Mccain was pulling **** out of his ass to slander Obama. It's the primary republican tactic. Make stuff up.

[MR EPIC]

You're always suspicious or skeptical Smokey. You undercover or somethin'? ;)

[Tanooki]

Keep it up Max I'm good for a week if you want one...just keep it up. I'm not making personal targetted strikes at you, that's all your game and if I have to go down in flames to make a point I will.

[MAX]

Then ignore me.

[virion]

I think we can all agree that Mccain looked like a corpse.

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f199/virion9/UNdead_McCain.jpg

[Tanooki]

You should do the same then. I know you got that PM saying if you can't control yourself set ignore. I'm perfectly fine talking to you, but I refuse to take anymore of your crap. I don't just make posts going 'max you're...this or that... and therefore are dumb.' But you seem to love trying to demean me any chance you get and take cheapshots and I'm done with it.

[MAX]

Can you please stay on topic. You're derailing the thread.

Virion: Exactly, lol

[Tanooki]

No I'm quite good thank you...you changed the topic taking yet another personal attack at me which you were warned not to do, and just like me, azure, and coral have a 'special rule' on 3 times and you're banned for good. You don't seem to have respect for that and I refuse to let any cheapshot go unanswered.

[Smokey]

Obama also in the last half came off as a bit angry, flustered, and annoyed by what McCain was doing so I'd say for shortcomings in behavior tonight they're pretty even.

I'd be annoyed too if someone I was arguing with was pulling stuff out of his ass that was blatantly untrue and was just used to deny Obama time to legitimately rip McCain a new one.

So because I think McCain just barely like 51/49%'d a virtual tie makes you suspect? Well if you care to think so, but I was just making a list.

Now that you mention it, yeah, it does, because there is no way you can rationally explain a McCain victory, no matter how slim the margin may be. Even so, I thought that the way you arranged the list was a subtle (or rather not-so-subtle) jab at those who believed Obama came out on top.

You're always suspicious or skeptical Smokey. You undercover or somethin'? ;)

I'm not at liberty to say.:cool:

[MAX]

After tonights 'meh' debates... all I have to say is that Palin and Biden better bring it. I need bloodshed.

[Tanooki]

^At least you got something there we can both agree on. I want to see how that one goes down big time.

[virion]

Jeff watched Mccain, then muted his tv when Obama came on. He's moderate. =)

Jeff you're going to completely turn this thread into the rules discussion over this comment? get over it.

[Tanooki]

We just both got a one day vacation from here for goading a fight and then (me) dropping insults retaliating over it, so no I kind of can't get over it because it just needs to stop and still hasn't. I don't want to see anyone banned, but I do want to see the personal crap buried. If that truly is the last time shots are taken I consider the issue over, but each and every time it may happen again I'll be sure to bring it up. As is that rule already drove azure off the site in protest which sucks.

[Smokey]

After tonights 'meh' debates... all I have to say is that Palin and Biden better bring it. I need bloodshed.

Vikings do bloodshed. Can't rely on ninjas for a good fight at all. Which is why I'm of the opinion that Biden the Viking and his aggressive style will kick Palin's hide-from-the-spotlight ninja ass.

IM IN UR THREDZ, MIXIN UR TOPIKZ.

[MAX]

Palin is a pirate. Because of all her booty. So...

[Tanooki]

As the record shows as far as Palin goes, I think it was in 1984 she had the second best booty in the state at that level of competition. :D

[MAX]

I just have this overwhelming sense that Obama would be far more interested in looking at all options when faced with a difficult foreign issue, whereas Mccain, I feel, would be more apt to play his 'heh heh heh I'm a MAVERICK' card and not listen to suggestions from others. That's the feeling I got from his "I'm a sheriff" comment, anyway.

That debate was so...odd to me. I can't even explain it. I think I overhyped myself.

[DEATHSTAR]

I agree we should test the waters and see if we can negotiate with Iran, but Obama needs to stop talking like sitting down with their president is actually going to accomplish anything. It's going to be a much more complicated process than that. McCain made him look foolish at that point in the debate, and for good reason, because he walked right into it.

I agree but am I the only one that heard Obama say that this would be a first step and that "it may not work" but after we've made the attempt we can then make a more calculated move from that point?

That didn't' sound so foolish to me, it sounded like the MINIMUM measure any diplomatic and democratic nation would take to dealing with foreign conflicts. Sometimes you know you're going to have to kick a guys ass even before you try and sit him down, but you should still try and sit him down before kicking his ass. (I mean that in the sense of a president, as a civilian I'm all about a preemptive strike in a bar fight)

I also agree that Obama gave away or tied on a few to many points that he should have won. I don't feel McCain did anything particularly well but the bar was set much lower for him so finishing the debate would have earned him a pass by default. Obama just didn't put the knife to his throat.

I did lose more respect for McCain though I hate it when he tries to open every event by evoking a tragedy, his POW experience or someone else's pain. I find it pretentious and I just plain don't buy it from the guy as he uses those tactics mostly when there convenient and rarely anytime else.

[Smokey]

Palin is a pirate. Because of all her booty. So...

Hottotty and I have already established that possession of booty does not make one a pirate. Booty or no, Palin's tactics smack of ninja-like cowardice (I'm speaking mostly in jest right now, BTW).

EDIT: Deathstar for prez. Even if he is a mangy spot-jacker.

[Lizzaroni]

God I wish I didn't have the LSATs coming up. Next chance I get, I'm getting wasted at one of these.

[Tanooki]

I think most overhyped themselves not knowing (for those that gullible) if it would happen.


Oh and Kissinger just put out a statement saying that Obama lied about him in relation to how to deal with Iran saying he and McCain see eye to eye on that country. Obviously they're friends, so it's not a big ouch, but he said he was upset he was being used in that way.

[Smokey]

I've seen statements from Kissinger saying that talks with preconditions are stupid. McCain gravely misjudged his stance in this debate.

[MAX]

Hottotty and I have already established that possession of booty does not make one a pirate. Booty or no, Palin's tactics smack of ninja-like cowardice (I'm speaking mostly in jest right now, BTW).

EDIT: Deathstar for prez. Even if he is a mangy spot-jacker.

Actually, that's a viking tactic... so to make people believe ninjas are like that. It's unfair, but Ninjas know they're better and don't have to prove themselves. (read: they aren't desperate)

[MAX]

Hurry!! FIRST ONE TO POST WHAT KISSINGER ACTUALLY SAID WINS!

[Smokey]

I'm a Viking. I have nothing to prove.

[Tanooki]

SURE here ya go max and from ABC news...not fox
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/fact-check-kiss.html

ABC News' Kirit Radia Reports: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger came to the defense of longtime friend Sen. John McCain following Friday's presidential debate saying he "would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level."

There's more off the link that's paragraph one.

[MAX]

Weird... so Kissinger flip flopped?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/kissinger-backs.html

ABC News' Rachel Martin Reports: Former U.S.Secretary of State Henry Kissinger today told an audience in Washington, DC that the U.S. should negotiate with Iran "without conditions" and that the next President should begin such negotiations at a high level.

[Tanooki]

Seems so. Kissinger long term I knew was one not to just start at the highest level, but then on your link he says that that one DC event. Obama tries to use that against McCain, and then old Henry comes back saying 'uh....no' and goes back again.

Hey you just asked for the quote, and I found it using google-> kissinger mccain ...in the box and it was the first thing that popped up.

[Smokey]

You're forgetting that Obama never stated that diplomatic relations should be first conducted on the presidential level. McCain accused Obama of such a stance, and Obama called bull****. Kissinger's trying to save McCain from himself.

[Tanooki]

Smokey I hate to do this to you but...

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
Diplomacy: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

[DEATHSTAR]

Deathstar for prez.

Smartest thing I've ever heard you say! You're now the VP, no need for an interview my gut tells me you can do the job... whatever it is! :)

[Darc Requiem]

I felt the debate was more or less a wash as far issues are concerned. Neither candidate came away a strong victory on the issues they should have, and both came off stronger than expected in their respective weak points.

But, issues are secondary to perceptions, and to me, Obama won this hands down. He came across presidential(at least while standing next to McCain), and reasonable. McCain, meanwhile, came across as dismissive, and condescending. I also felt that at several points he started to come off as the rambling old man talking about how in his day.... etc...

I don't know you well Richard but your view of the debate describes mine perfectly.

[Smokey]

Smartest thing I've ever heard you say! You're now the VP, no need for an interview my gut tells me you can do the job... whatever it is! :)

And I will be happy to jump on the bandwagon...wherever it is!:D

@ Jeff: I have a hard time believing that Obama would so obviously contradict himself. "Presidential" in that context could just as easily mean "executive". The use of the term in this debate made the meaning pretty obvious, but the site's use is vague enough to mean a few things.

[Tanooki]

Agreed, but it is his fact sheet both in html and pdf format so that is fair game. Obama needs in the case of that to be precise. Technically a 'presidential' level can be him, the vp, sec of state even. The problem is though McCain was quoting his website.

[Smokey]

I don't think McCain even realized that. I think McCain was just grasping at straws and managed to find one of some substance. McCain was pretty unprepared about everything else; how could he have studied up on that one thing and nothing else?

[Tanooki]

I wouldn't say he was unprepared as that's not fair. He has his own ideas on how to do stuff, Obama has his. They were both prepared for what they know and wanted to spill. And why give McCain credit alone for that, he's got a staff of a few dozen who could have picked up that gem and reminded him to use it if the chance came up. :)

[Lizzaroni]

YES WE CAN. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glMAUQPplEk)

[Tanooki]

Lizz I prefer this one here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bih5nu0QOng) as Robot Chicken did it best!

[Smokey]

I wouldn't say he was unprepared as that's not fair. He has his own ideas on how to do stuff, Obama has his. They were both prepared for what they know and wanted to spill. And why give McCain credit alone for that, he's got a staff of a few dozen who could have picked up that gem and reminded him to use it if the chance came up. :)

I suppose it's possible that his staff tipped him off to it, but I still don't think that's the case. And fair or no, he wasn't planning on being at this debate until Friday morning. Wouldn't you call that unprepared?

[MR EPIC]

Jeff Riviera summed the debate up rather nicely in Sean O'neil's blog. Most people in this thread aren't saying anything new, they're just sticking up for the person whom they've been supporting (or at least arguing in favor of) all along. While that is respectable in a "loyalty" sense, it doesn't mean that it's the smartest thing to do. If you honestly believe that the guy you're supporting is the right choice then go with it and do the right thing, but if you're just being stubborn in order to win a debate on a gaming website then I feel sorry for you.

[Tanooki]

Smokey that's debatable. Up to when he went to Washington he was prepping and going to do it. He then went to DC and said unless some progress is made he may not go down there, but deep down can you honestly believe he would have blown that off to give Obama a 90min blank check to make him look stupid with no rebuttal? I don't buy that, no one is that dumb. But McCain publicly admitted as is that his prep was very small so he didn't have much time to be ready. He says he put in 2 hours the night before, and 2 hours today before going on stage. Obama as I recall had days of it in Florida and likely more of it today though he could have done his favorite stress breaker before a big thing...a pick up basketball game which is cool. :)

[MAX]

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs)

[Hottotty]

Smokey that's debatable. Up to when he went to Washington he was prepping and going to do it. He then went to DC and said unless some progress is made he may not go down there, but deep down can you honestly believe he would have blown that off to give Obama a 90min blank check to make him look stupid with no rebuttal? I don't buy that, no one is that dumb. But McCain publicly admitted as is that his prep was very small so he didn't have much time to be ready. He says he put in 2 hours the night before, and 2 hours today before going on stage. Obama as I recall had days of it in Florida and likely more of it today though he could have done his favorite stress breaker before a big thing...a pick up basketball game which is cool. :)

Well, sure, if you're a total sucker I could see how you'd believe that. Or, maybe, just maybe, the lack of preparation was a scapegoat, a lie, and a ploy to:

1. Make McCain look like he doesn't need high-falooten practice to "debate". He is a man of the people, a maverick, and speaks his mind.
2. Contrast McCain's down and dirty priorities with a sissy like Obama, who wastes his days away at debate school.
3. Imply that if Obama "won", whatever the hell that means, he only did because he practiced more.
4. Imply that if McCain "won", it wasn't for his coaching, but because he's a real leader.

Lies!

I do like that they have matching bracelets. If anyone knows the mum of a soldier that hasn't given her bracelet away yet, let her know I want one so I can be president too.

[MR EPIC]

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs)

I get it. :D

[virion]

"If we can't meet with our friends, I don't know how we're going to lead the world in terms of dealing with critical issues like terrorism."

take that mccain.

Obama FTW - presidential debate 9/26/08.

[Lucas]

I've been stressing out over this election too much as of late. I have no intention of getting involved in the back and forth, but I will say this much.

I gained back a little respect for McCain tonight because I could see a little bit of the man I used to respect. When he isn't spewing lies on the campaign trail, he's a knowledgeable and insightful person and it was nice to get to see some of that again. That said though, Obama beat him hands down. Obama didn't destroy him, but he did beat him. He remained calm, cool, light, and smooth while calling out all of McCain's "gotcha" moments, which he did very well then threw back. All Obama really needed to do was hold his ground on foreign affairs, but he did better than that. McCain looked like an isolationist in comparison.

Favorite parts? McCain claimed a mother asked him to make sure her son's death wasn't in vain. Obama told of a mother who asked him to make sure another mother didn't have to go through that same hell. I so agree. No soldier's lost life is ever in vain if they served their country--whatever the outcome. But why send more to die in a lost cause in their memory? Is it just to vindicate the previous death? For honor's sake? Honor in that light is basically nothing but an endless looping cycle of death. Loose one, send another to vindicate the loss, rinse, repeat. Honor is deeper than that.

McCain's slight comparison of pulling out of Iraq to pulling out of Vietnam. Bad move. It was slight enough that I don't think people will ream him for it (much), but if he does that again, he's screwed.

I also noticed Obama seems to have gotten rid of his stutter. He has a tendency to pause and go "uhh, well, you see...". It was bad all the way through the primaries. He stopped doing that about 15 minutes in and never blinked after that. McCain seemed to get more bothered as time went on.

Jim Larher kept trying to prod the two in a heated argument, but neither took the bait. I liked that, but it was noticeable how McCain grew more and more aggravated throughout the debate, relying heavily on his usual twitches (shrugging, blinking, forced laughter) when he seemed to get annoyed. Why wouldn't he look at Obama? Obama looked at whoever he was talking to (moderator, McCain, or the camera/people of America), but McCain didn't. Odd, but meaningless really.

So yeah. Good debate overall. I would have liked it more if the bloody debate committee had loosened up the topics to be less foreign affairs and more economy, but whatever. I'm tired of riding my bicycle half the time to save gas money.

[Idol Australian]

I want a real debate where one of the people jumps up and punches out the other.

That is what a real debate is.

[Hottotty]

Lucas: The president's not God. Gas prices aren't going down. Ever. Sorry man, but it's the bike for you.

[Lovebird]

I want a real debate where one of the people jumps up and punches out the other.

That is what a real debate is.

Actually, a real debate would include all of the candidates. Last time I checked, there are other candidates for the presidency.

Maybe if they would allow all of the major candidates to debate it would be more interesting and show the American people that they have more than two viable options.

[JValone]

I wouldn't consider Nader a major candidate. His potential to win is incredibly low so I don't he think he's in the "major" category. I would like to see more candidates in the debate though, not just Nader, but also a Libertarian candidate or possibly Ron Paul. While I don't think any of them could beat Obama/McCain having them there would spice up the arguments with more diverse viewpoints.

[MR EPIC]

Anyone else notice how, throughout the night, Obama referred to McCain as "John" and McCain referred to him as "Senator Obama"?

[Hottotty]

Actually, a real debate would include all of the candidates. Last time I checked, there are other candidates for the presidency.

Maybe if they would allow all of the major candidates to debate it would be more interesting and show the American people that they have more than two viable options.

I agree. Part of the reason there's a fictitious binary division is because there's only two parties represented. Coincidentally, you can have more options than bomb Iran or abort baby fetuses. I say, do both!

P.S. I love that pic of Nader. Sigged!

[HGW XX/7]

^What if I'd like to bomb Iran AND abort baby fetuses? I think we can all agree that would be the ideal there.

[Smokey]

Anyone else notice how, throughout the night, Obama referred to McCain as "John" and McCain referred to him as "Senator Obama"?

I get your point, but really, considering that McCain has the same trouble with correct pronunciation that Bush does, I think "Senator Obama" is a safer bet than "Barack". Obama's got it easy in that respect.

[virion]

vote obama, kill osama. that's what i got from obama's side.

[Lucas]

Lucas: The president's not God. Gas prices aren't going down. Ever. Sorry man, but it's the bike for you.

Gas prices will never go down, yes. But we need a leader who will work to raise the MPG limits on car manufacturers and will provide incentives to industry to get them off their ass and get us our hydrogen/hybrid/electric cars in a timely manner. Hell, European cars can get near 100MPG and we're still allowing factories in the US to crank out gas guzzling Ford F-150's that barely scrape by 20MPG. That's pathetic. People are going broke over this sh*t.

Another four years of worshiping the oil industry isn't going to get it done.

[virion]

i'm fine only getting 10 mpg out of my chevy. almost 500 hp. i wouldn't trade that for 40 mpg.

[MR EPIC]

^You sound like a Mexican. :P

[Lovebird]

I wouldn't consider Nader a major candidate. His potential to win is incredibly low so I don't he think he's in the "major" category. I would like to see more candidates in the debate though, not just Nader, but also a Libertarian candidate or possibly Ron Paul. While I don't think any of them could beat Obama/McCain having them there would spice up the arguments with more diverse viewpoints.

Yea, I guess being on the ballot in 45 states and consistently polling above 6 percent isn't major, that's only 10 million or so Americans I guess...

Ass.

[MAX]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgHHX9R4Qtk

lmao.. get to florida people.

[MR EPIC]

Sarah Silverman IMO is not naturally a really good looking woman nor is she my type, but I think it's her sense of humor, the fact that she doesn't give a ****, and her filthy mouth that make me want her more than unlimited soup and breadsticks at the Olive Garden.

Oh, and the video was funny.

[Smokey]

Yea, I guess being on the ballot in 45 states and consistently polling above 6 percent isn't major, that's only 10 million or so Americans I guess...

Ass.

10 out of 300? Not really.

Sarah Silverman IMO is not naturally a really good looking woman nor is she my type, but I think it's her sense of humor, the fact that she doesn't give a ****, and her filthy mouth that make me want her more than unlimited soup and breadsticks at the Olive Garden.

Oh, and the video was funny.

But not more than the Never-Ending Pasta, rit?:P

[MR EPIC]

Ooooh, that's a tough call.

[SpaceOddity]

mccain always strikes me as some creepy perverted great uncle that is at family gatherings checking out your sister

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

lol

[Lizzaroni]

http://content.imagesocket.com/images/editorial_20080818_colora71.jpg

[MAX]

lmao

[Hottotty]

http://content.imagesocket.com/images/editorial_20080818_colora71.jpg

haha

I really wish he was wearing his bracelet in that pic.

[Tanooki]

Come on now that image isn't accurate, he can't get his arms that high and you know it. >:]

[Hottotty]

Evil!

haha @ torture

[Lovebird]

And I suppose Nader getting on the ballot in more states at a faster rate than ANY other independent candidate in the entire history of the United States presidential elections doesn't mean a god damned thing.

Either way, even if you don't consider Nader to be a major candidate, the American people should know that they do have other options. I mean, voting isn't about picking a winner, it's about picking who you believe in. There are options, like it or not, and to allow these corporate powers to keep the people in the dark is inexcusable.

We've been living under the Reagan administration for too long now, it's time for a real change. Take the power out of the hands of the corporations, out of the hands of the corporate parties, and put it back in the hands of real Americans. I'm not a conspiracy nut, I'm not an idiot, it's the truth. To ignore the fact that the two major parties in this country are run, funded, influenced, and bow down to these corporations is sickening. Our representatives are supposed to act in the name of the people, not their corporate pay masters.

[Tanooki]

Ahh you're such the cute little anarchist aren't you? :D

[Lizzaroni]

Come on now that image isn't accurate, he can't get his arms that high and you know it. >:]
Holy **** dude, lol.

[Lovebird]

Yea, I guess being on the ballot in 45 states and consistently polling above 6 percent isn't major, that's only 10 million or so Americans I guess...

Ass.

Sorry J, I read a different post, but quoted you. whoop. yr not an ass. lol.

[Darc Requiem]

Gas prices will never go down, yes. But we need a leader who will work to raise the MPG limits on car manufacturers and will provide incentives to industry to get them off their ass and get us our hydrogen/hybrid/electric cars in a timely manner. Hell, European cars can get near 100MPG and we're still allowing factories in the US to crank out gas guzzling Ford F-150's that barely scrape by 20MPG. That's pathetic. People are going broke over this sh*t.

Another four years of worshiping the oil industry isn't going to get it done.

Lucas never compare the US Auto Industry to the European Auto Industry. Europe has mass transit for the most part the US does not. Because of that, gas isn't in demand in Europe like it is in the US. If you look at places in the US that have a good mass transit system a good deal of the citizens don't drive. New York City is a prime example. You could give everyone in the US the most fuel efficent vehicle available and we'd still use more gas than Europe. Commuting to work is a common occurrence here.

Not only that, you if someone wants to buy an F-150 with the current gas prices let them. You can't legislate demand. The type of vehicles manufactured are based on what people buy. Even Toyota and Nissan started building full size trucks in the US because it was huge market until the gas prices ballooned. People that don't need trucks aren't buying them and are now looking towards cars. With that being the case, the auto manufactures are shifting their focus away from Trucks.

[JValone]

Sorry J, I read a different post, but quoted you. whoop. yr not an ass. lol.

It's cool dude. I didn't mean to diminish Nader by saying he wasn't a major candidate anyway. I don't consider Ron Paul a major candidate either but I'd prefer him to either Obama or McCain. I was speaking strictly of the chance he would be elected, which is close to none.

[Vinny-AMN]

Obama is a black Freddy Krueger.

..oh****I'msorrywasthatracist?

[Lovebird]

was speaking strictly of the chance he would be elected, which is close to none.

True, but I would much rather vote for someone who I believe in who will lose, then someone who will win but betray myself and my fellow citizen.

I just think that if people saw Barr, Paul, Nader, McKinney and Baldwin in these debates side by side with McCain and Obama, they would have a chance, and some of them would overshadow McCain and Obama I'm sure. Which is why they are not allowed in the debates.

Notice I say "in" the debates, because they can't even physically be there. When presidential candidates are arrested at a presidential debate that they were only going to view, **** IS ****ED UP.

[DEATHSTAR]

True, but I would much rather vote for someone who I believe in who will lose, then someone who will win but betray myself and my fellow citizen.

I just think that if people saw Barr, Paul, Nader, McKinney and Baldwin in these debates side by side with McCain and Obama, they would have a chance, and some of them would overshadow McCain and Obama I'm sure. Which is why they are not allowed in the debates.

Notice I say "in" the debates, because they can't even physically be there. When presidential candidates are arrested at a presidential debate that they were only going to view, **** IS ****ED UP.

I'm all for voting on principle and for the candidate that is best in your eyes. But there comes a point where you vote for the best VIABLE option as this country has been doing for the last umpteen years. Are you really doing yourself a favor by voting for a candidate that you know can't win?

Unfortunately, the presidential race is between 2 people despite there being more candidates technically. While I agree that's not fair it doesn't change that and I'm more focused on voting for the better of the two people that can win the presidency. Both of which are not perfect by a long shot I might add.

EDIT: and let me also add that I don't believe in any politician. I expect them all to have a thread of dishonesty at some level that may or may not have been triggered yet but will at some point.

[Smokey]

I just think that if people saw Barr, Paul, Nader, McKinney and Baldwin in these debates side by side with McCain and Obama, they would have a chance, and some of them would overshadow McCain and Obama I'm sure. Which is why they are not allowed in the debates.

Well, if all of the candidates got in on a debate, that debate would take much longer than the current hour and a half. That would take anywhere between 8-10 hours to get the same kind of response.

Besides, honestly, if Nader hasn't been taken seriously for like the past five elections, I seriously doubt that anyone will give him a spot in any debate.

[virion]

a vote for nadar, is a vote for mccain. sadly. **** 2 party politics.

[DEATHSTAR]

a vote for nadar, is a vote for mccain. sadly. **** 2 party politics.

That's kinda the point I was trying to make. A vote for a candidate that can't win statistically going into the election is just as good as voting for the candidate you like the least between the two that can win.

[Lucas]

When presidential candidates are arrested at a presidential debate that they were only going to view, **** IS ****ED UP.

Now that is total bull****. I totally agree with you there.

[Lizzaroni]

A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. Anyone who believes otherwise is the reason that everyone assumes they must defer to one of the two parties. That is, they're part of the problem.

[Smokey]

Technically, yes. Realistically, no. That's how Clinton beat Bush, Sr., when so many potential Bush voters voted for the third party candidate (either Perot or Dole, I can't remember). It's happened all through our nation's history, all the way back to the Taft election AT LEAST.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel like experimenting like that with something as important as who's going to the lead the country. Obama represents what I want just fine, and I'm not going to bother looking for a better candidate who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning this election.

[virion]

come on lizz.. everyone who would vote for nadar would realistically vote for obama between the two.. just the same as people who voted for nadar took away votes from gore.

[Lizzaroni]

Reread my post: it's precisely because people feel compelled to vote strategically instead of by principle that this issue exists. It doesn't matter where the overlap lies, only that people who lean one way will suffer an individual with a more diluted platform over another platform. **** that.

[Lovebird]

a vote for nadar, is a vote for mccain. sadly. **** 2 party politics.

***************magic?********************

I think only BlueRogue would get that.

[Darc Requiem]

Liz is right. The reason we are stuck with a two party system is because people vote against a candidate instead for the candidate they believe in.

[MR EPIC]

Reread my post: it's precisely because people feel compelled to vote strategically instead of by principle that this issue exists. It doesn't matter where the overlap lies, only that people who lean one way will suffer an individual with a more diluted platform over another platform. **** that.

If what you're getting at is "Vote for the person rather than the party" I couldn't agree more.

[Smokey]

Reread my post: it's precisely because people feel compelled to vote strategically instead of by principle that this issue exists. It doesn't matter where the overlap lies, only that people who lean one way will suffer an individual with a more diluted platform over another platform. **** that.

Now reread mine: nobody wants to experiment with something as important as choosing the leader of the nation. It's kinda like how peasants several centuries ago didn't experiment with new tools and methods of agriculture because they couldn't afford for the experiment to fail. Most of the time, successful experiments are achieved by people with nothing to lose. I think in this case, there aren't a whole lot of people like that.

[Lovebird]

a vote for nadar, is a vote for mccain. sadly. **** 2 party politics.

come on lizz.. everyone who would vote for nadar would realistically vote for obama between the two.. just the same as people who voted for nadar took away votes from gore.

You sir, are what is known as an idiot.

You and others like you have taken our democracy down the ****ter. Thanks, asshole.

[Smokey]

Um, this attitude has existed almost since this nation was born. You want to blame someone, go talk to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.:dry:

[DEATHSTAR]

Like I said before, Liz and Patrick are not wrong. I'm just acknowledging that the table is set as far as the current election is concerned. My vote will always be strategic and I believe that strategy is inherent in voting to begin with.

[MR EPIC]

LOL. Although you guys are basically acknowledging that this form of thinking is incorrect, you're still going to go ahead with it because it's been a tradition for a long time? I fear for the future of this country. Many of you are the reason I never wanted to have kids.

[Hottotty]

For the record, two party politics does kill democracy. The voter is neither wrong nor right for voting strategically. The system is innately flawed. As I've said, it sets up a series of absurd binaries, and people believe the binaries are opposites. This belief polarizes people, and forces them to extremes. Suddenly, compassionate abortion turns into baby slaughter. Homosexual rights turns into Cack and Ball Orgy Fest '08.

There is such a thing as a functioning minority government. Love it, people. LOVE IT.

[MR EPIC]

Haha, good point.

[virion]

You sir, are what is known as an idiot.

You and others like you have taken our democracy down the ****ter. Thanks, asshole.

**** you. in the last election i voted FOR nadar. but i'm not going to be able to change everyone's ****ing voting policy. as i'm not an idiot i realize that if i vote for nadar this time around i'm taking a vote away from obama (who i believe would be way better than mccain) thus making our whole country go down the ****ter. like i said, **** 2 party politics. but sadly that's the way our democracy is. last time around i voted for the person. this time i'm voting for the lesser of 2 evils. **** you.

[MR EPIC]

Okay guys, calm down. I've already addressed the situation via PM so let's just move on from here.

[Lovebird]

Um, this attitude has existed almost since this nation was born. You want to blame someone, go talk to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.:dry:

And that's not the way our democracy has to be, though, which is my point.

There shouldn't be arrogant parties who put corporate and political needs before the people. That was one of the main points our forefathers tried to make. George Washington warned against forming parties, as did many other founding fathers.

And virion, you voted for Nader but you can't spell his name? Even when it's right in front of you with like a size 32 font? And how can you say "**** party politics" but then support it? You just make no sense to me, man.

I'm voting for Nader because he will impeach Bush and Cheney, have the National Initiative put in place, end the war in Iraq immediately, get rid of the Taft-Hartley, cut down our ridiculously high military budget, take the corporations out of Washington, take constitutional rights away from corporations, adopt a single payer healthcare system that works, explore energy alternatives that are safer, and to get rid of all of the bull**** put in place that keeps smaller guys like Nader off the ballot and open the debates.

McCain and Obama will do none of these things.

Nader has spent his entire career protecting all of our constitutional rights from the elitist and corporate powers, and has not wavered once. I want an American in the White House, not a corporate or political puppet.

[virion]

And virion, you voted for Nader but you can't spell his name? Even when it's right in front of you with like a size 32 font? And how can you say "**** party politics" but then support it? You just make no sense to me, man.

i apologize for the typing error. and you clearly don't see that the only reason i would do it is to basically save our country from going any further down the hole.

I'm voting for Nader because he will impeach Bush and Cheney, have the National Initiative put in place, end the war in Iraq immediately, get rid of the Taft-Hartley, cut down our ridiculously high military budget, take the corporations out of Washington, take constitutional rights away from corporations, adopt a single payer healthcare system that works, explore energy alternatives that are safer, and to get rid of all of the bull**** put in place that keeps smaller guys like Nader off the ballot and open the debates.

McCain and Obama will do none of these things.

and neither will nader because he will never be president. not by my choice. just reality.

[Lovebird]

Once again, I would rather vote for someone who will lose but I believe in, who I trust, and who wants what I want, than someone who will win and improve nothing and betray those who voted for them.

You say tomato, I say Nader.

[Lizzaroni]

Now reread mine: nobody wants to experiment with something as important as choosing the leader of the nation. It's kinda like how peasants several centuries ago didn't experiment with new tools and methods of agriculture because they couldn't afford for the experiment to fail.
Whaaaaaaaaaat?

Most of the time, successful experiments are achieved by people with nothing to lose. I think in this case, there aren't a whole lot of people like that.
I would like to know what you're basing this claim on ("successful experiments are achieved by people with nothing to lose") and why having something to lose is in itself 100% prohibitive.

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

I'm voting for Nader because he will impeach Bush and Cheney, have the National Initiative put in place, end the war in Iraq immediately, get rid of the Taft-Hartley, cut down our ridiculously high military budget, take the corporations out of Washington, take constitutional rights away from corporations, adopt a single payer healthcare system that works, explore energy alternatives that are safer, and to get rid of all of the bull**** put in place that keeps smaller guys like Nader off the ballot and open the debates.

McCain and Obama will do none of these things.

Nader has spent his entire career protecting all of our constitutional rights from the elitist and corporate powers, and has not wavered once. I want an American in the White House, not a corporate or political puppet.

I have tremendous respect for Ralph Nader, and I agree with him on some issues, but most of the things you described as reasons for voting for Ralph Nader are things that one of the major candidates already support. Obama wants to end Iraq in 2009, cut down our military budget, take corporations out, he supports a single payer healthcare system, and wants to explore alternative energy instead of throwing our money and efforts away on drilling. Just sayin'.

You can call a democrat or a republican a "political puppet" as much as you like, but they still have a party platform, and they still plan on executing the policies they stand for. Not all major party candidates are seething in corruption, nor are they hell-bent on destroying your civil liberties or well-being or whatever rights you take for granted. So if you're gonna vote because of the issues, then there's more than one candidate that represents your own views.

Btw I'm typing this while doing homework, so if it comes off as rambling, I apologize.

[Lovebird]

I have tremendous respect for Ralph Nader, and I agree with him on some issues, but most of the things you described as reasons for voting for Ralph Nader are things that one of the major candidates already support. Obama wants to end Iraq in 2009, cut down our military budget, take corporations out, he supports a single payer healthcare system, and wants to explore alternative energy instead of throwing our money and efforts away on drilling. Just sayin'.

You can call a democrat or a republican a "political puppet" as much as you like, but they still have a party platform, and they still plan on executing the policies they stand for. Not all major party candidates are seething in corruption, nor are they hell-bent on destroying your civil liberties or well-being or whatever rights you take for granted. So if you're gonna vote because of the issues, then there's more than one candidate that represents your own views.

Btw I'm typing this while doing homework, so if it comes off as rambling, I apologize.

As far as Obama and the issues: Nader has a six moth plan for withdrawl, Obama does not. Obama has said he does not support a single payer system, and Nader specifically wants to look into solar and wind and not nuclear. Plus Obama hasn't shown support for the National Initiative and hasn't said he will stop corporations from being protected by the constitution (they are corporations, not people).

I know not all dem/repub politicians are corrupt, but the system on the whole as it stands now is. It's controlled and influenced by a select few, and the two parties on the whole sway at their whim.

I've also considered Barr, but Nader is my homeboy.

[Lizzaroni]

Er, there's really no way we could withdraw in six months whether we wanted to or not (not unless the US gov't commondeered commercial flights, among other things.) It's a matter of logistics, not conviction.

[Lovebird]

Maybe yr right. After reading up on it after you pointed that out, and after me realising after you pointed it out that that is insane, I read up on it again, and read it wrong before. But basically the plan is, pull out of troops within six months, and then be like "AY YO IRAXX? Does you still want halp?"

I apologize for being retarded, but I am sorely sleep deprived, and my neighbors are blasting DU HAST at this hour.

[Z.E.I.D.A.N]

After reading up on it after you pointed that out, and after me realising after you pointed it out that that is insane, I read up on it again, and read it wrong before.

I lol'd :D

[I'mSuperAwesome!]

This is the best thing to come out of the debates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec3aC8ZJZTc
love this ad!

[Lucas]

HA-HA! I was wondering how long it would take McCain to use those quotes, but damn. Even I'll admit that one's a classic.

Still though, debate clips won't do him much good. 60,000,000 people+ saw that debate, so odds are anybody who saw that ad understands the context with which Obama was agreeing with McCain.

[Smokey]

Whaaaaaaaaaat?

My point is that people don't want to experiment with something that works when the cost of failure is so high.

I would like to know what you're basing this claim on ("successful experiments are achieved by people with nothing to lose") and why having something to lose is in itself 100% prohibitive.

Advances in agriculutre and transport have either been undertaken by wealthy individuals in those fields that could absorb potential losses or individuals in fields not directly affected by either the success or failure of said experiments.

As for having something to lose, I misspoke. It's not a matter of having something to lose, but a matter of having everything to lose.

[Tanooki]

No you know what's funny about that ad bit? It was made and online within 20min of the debate ending. Speedy response eh?

[Smokey]

Well, at least we have some idea of how long it would take McCain to decide that nuclear warfare* is really necessary.

*That's WWIII, actually.

[Lizzaroni]

My point is that people don't want to experiment with something that works when the cost of failure is so high.
The cost of failure isn't high. Your vote has next to no effect on the outcome. You literally have almost nothing to lose.

Advances in agriculutre and transport have either been undertaken by wealthy individuals in those fields that could absorb potential losses or individuals in fields not directly affected by either the success or failure of said experiments.
No, I meant proof, not iteration of what you had already said.

[Smokey]

The cost of failure isn't high. Your vote has next to no effect on the outcome. You literally have almost nothing to lose.

I'm not sure I understand. How is getting a terrible leader in office in office instead of a better candidate, just because you picked someone who had no chance of winning, not a high cost?

No, I meant proof, not iteration of what you had already said.

Eli Whitney. He was a teacher of the law with a gift for mechanics. His livelihood did not depend on inventing the cotton gin, nor did it depend on the manufacture of rifles, nor was he forced to produce either.