OT We're Doomed

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:12:01 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:50:13 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

McCain didn't foam at the mouth or fall down twitching
in an epileptic fit and he didn't look too terribly nuts
or unpresidential, so he won.

God help us.

Proving the old adage; "When the going gets tough the tough
go fishing", me and the pup are in Boulder Junction tonight.
Trout fishing tomorrow during the day, back here to the hotel
room to watch Illini-Penn State tomorrow night, then set up
our basecamp for an extended bout of fall musky and smallmouth
fishing on Sunday.

I'll check in on roff, and post links to pics, every now and
then from a WiFi hotspot at a local watering hole with a dog
friendly outdoor beer garden overlooking the Manitowish River.

Y'all play nice.

Don't despair, your premise is likely flawed. I think most people were
actually wondering if Obama could match up in "Presidentialness" with McCain,
and as far as that goes, Obama did just fine. He was certainly more coherent
than McCain, who frequently struggled to keep a thread on track.

Indeed, McCain may have hurt himself when he started getting agitated and
resorted to filibustering the limited time, and making demeaning statements.
And while I'm not a student of the whole "body language" thing, he came off
looking like a white-knuckled stiff compared to Obama. Sure - he didn't
actually burst into flames, but as he sinks further in the polls, that might
just happen in the next debate.

Anyway...according to the only *sampling* poll of those who actually watched
the debate that I've found so far, Obama "won" the debate hands-down. But the
greater point is, this first debate was supposed to play to McCain's alleged
strengths in foreign policy. It definitely didn't...

Have fun, catch a bunch of feesh!

/daytripper


McCain v. Obama, on the debate and the election, flip a coin - neither
won, neither lost - big, huge, ****ing waste of time in Oxford waiting
for some real excitement today...they both shoulda stayed in DC...

TC,
R

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:11:42 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:12:01 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:50:13 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

McCain didn't foam at the mouth or fall down twitching
in an epileptic fit and he didn't look too terribly nuts
or unpresidential, so he won.

God help us.

Proving the old adage; "When the going gets tough the tough
go fishing", me and the pup are in Boulder Junction tonight.
Trout fishing tomorrow during the day, back here to the hotel
room to watch Illini-Penn State tomorrow night, then set up
our basecamp for an extended bout of fall musky and smallmouth
fishing on Sunday.

I'll check in on roff, and post links to pics, every now and
then from a WiFi hotspot at a local watering hole with a dog
friendly outdoor beer garden overlooking the Manitowish River.

Y'all play nice.

Don't despair, your premise is likely flawed. I think most people were
actually wondering if Obama could match up in "Presidentialness" with McCain,
and as far as that goes, Obama did just fine. He was certainly more coherent
than McCain, who frequently struggled to keep a thread on track.

Indeed, McCain may have hurt himself when he started getting agitated and
resorted to filibustering the limited time, and making demeaning statements.
And while I'm not a student of the whole "body language" thing, he came off
looking like a white-knuckled stiff compared to Obama. Sure - he didn't
actually burst into flames, but as he sinks further in the polls, that might
just happen in the next debate.

Anyway...according to the only *sampling* poll of those who actually watched
the debate that I've found so far, Obama "won" the debate hands-down. But the
greater point is, this first debate was supposed to play to McCain's alleged
strengths in foreign policy. It definitely didn't...

Have fun, catch a bunch of feesh!

/daytripper


McCain v. Obama, on the debate and the election, flip a coin - neither
won, neither lost - big, huge, ****ing waste of time in Oxford waiting
for some real excitement today...they both shoulda stayed in DC...

TC,
R

Not only do I disagree, but those who were polled do as well. While the
churlish (read: die hard Rethuglicans) would love to dismiss the debate as "a
whole lot of nothing", there were some illuminating things to take from it.

Not the least of which, those who were polled felt that Obama was actually
"stronger" on Iraq than McCain - which I interpret to mean that Americans want
us out, and McCain represents bidness as usual, ad infinitum.

I will agree with Ken's concerns to this extent: if Obama was white, this
thing would have been long over. McCain has nothing going for him now...

/daytripper

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 23:00:25 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:11:42 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:12:01 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:50:13 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

McCain didn't foam at the mouth or fall down twitching
in an epileptic fit and he didn't look too terribly nuts
or unpresidential, so he won.

God help us.

Proving the old adage; "When the going gets tough the tough
go fishing", me and the pup are in Boulder Junction tonight.
Trout fishing tomorrow during the day, back here to the hotel
room to watch Illini-Penn State tomorrow night, then set up
our basecamp for an extended bout of fall musky and smallmouth
fishing on Sunday.

I'll check in on roff, and post links to pics, every now and
then from a WiFi hotspot at a local watering hole with a dog
friendly outdoor beer garden overlooking the Manitowish River.

Y'all play nice.

Don't despair, your premise is likely flawed. I think most people were
actually wondering if Obama could match up in "Presidentialness" with McCain,
and as far as that goes, Obama did just fine. He was certainly more coherent
than McCain, who frequently struggled to keep a thread on track.

Indeed, McCain may have hurt himself when he started getting agitated and
resorted to filibustering the limited time, and making demeaning statements.
And while I'm not a student of the whole "body language" thing, he came off
looking like a white-knuckled stiff compared to Obama. Sure - he didn't
actually burst into flames, but as he sinks further in the polls, that might
just happen in the next debate.

Anyway...according to the only *sampling* poll of those who actually watched
the debate that I've found so far, Obama "won" the debate hands-down. But the
greater point is, this first debate was supposed to play to McCain's alleged
strengths in foreign policy. It definitely didn't...

Have fun, catch a bunch of feesh!

/daytripper


McCain v. Obama, on the debate and the election, flip a coin - neither
won, neither lost - big, huge, ****ing waste of time in Oxford waiting
for some real excitement today...they both shoulda stayed in DC...

TC,
R

Not only do I disagree, but those who were polled do as well. While the
churlish (read: die hard Rethuglicans) would love to dismiss the debate as "a
whole lot of nothing", there were some illuminating things to take from it.

Not the least of which, those who were polled felt that Obama was actually
"stronger" on Iraq than McCain - which I interpret to mean that Americans want
us out, and McCain represents bidness as usual, ad infinitum.

I will agree with Ken's concerns to this extent: if Obama was white, this
thing would have been long over.

With this, I agree. If Obama had white skin (come on, he's "white" with
some pigment in his skin...), he would be, at best, just another cog in
the crooked Illinois Dem political machine, Hillary would be the Dem
nominee, and whoever the GOP...oops, excuse me, Sarge...the Republicans
nominated would be cruising to Inauguration...

McCain has nothing going for him now...

Well, nothing but a 50-50 shot at POTUS...

HTH,
R

/daytripper