News Scoring the Presidential Debate #1: Winners, Kill Blows & Major Subjects

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The debate analysis reveals that Barack Obama was perceived as more presidential and engaged than John McCain, who often failed to directly address questions. Obama effectively challenged McCain on key issues, particularly regarding tax breaks for oil companies and misrepresentations of his policies. His ability to clarify misconceptions about his tax plan and highlight McCain's past support for Bush's economic policies was noted as significant. McCain, while experienced, came off as condescending and avoided eye contact with Obama, which detracted from his performance. The discussion emphasized that the winner of the debate would ultimately be determined by public perception, with early polls indicating a favorable view of Obama. Overall, Obama was seen as calm, knowledgeable, and respectful, while McCain appeared more aggressive but less relatable. The debate's impact on voter sentiment and the candidates' contrasting styles were central to the analysis.

What was the score?

  • McCain won by a large margin

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • McCain won but it was close

    Votes: 9 23.7%

  • Obama won by a large margin

    Votes: 10 26.3%

  • Obama won but it was close

    Votes: 12 31.6%

  • It was a tie

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • Total voters
    38
  • #51
edward said:
Did anyone notice that McCain claimed that Eisenhower sat down and wrote a letter of resignation after Normandy. This is not historically correct, Ike wrote a note accepting responsiblilty for Normandy.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/744/


CEO's will write a note saying "so long sucker"

I noticed that, as well as the fact that he reported Ted Kennedy was in the hospital even after he was already announced released. (I reported it elsewhere prior to the speech.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
What I mostly noticed was when both candidates were asked, "what would you cut in order to pay for the $700-billion bail-out?" Obama stubbournly refused to answer. H ehad to be asked three times, before he resorted to the old montra, "the war in Iraq." Ther first two times, he just replied with things he's not going to cut, and things on which he plans to spend more.

McCain answered the question directly, and his answer made sense. To me, this characterised the entire debate; Obama continued to rhetoricise, while McCain actually gave answers.

From where I sat, the debate was close, but not that close. A definite win for McCain.
 
  • #53
LURCH said:
What I mostly noticed was when both candidates were asked, "what would you cut in order to pay for the $700-billion bail-out?" Obama stubbournly refused to answer. H ehad to be asked three times, before he resorted to the old montra, "the war in Iraq." Ther first two times, he just replied with things he's not going to cut, and things on which he plans to spend more.

McCain answered the question directly, and his answer made sense. To me, this characterised the entire debate; Obama continued to rhetoricise, while McCain actually gave answers.

From where I sat, the debate was close, but not that close. A definite win for McCain.
What, exactly did McCain say other than he was going to freeze everything? Obviously that's ridiculous, you can't freeze all spending. McCain gave no answer. I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to.

Obama made sense, he said that you would have to look at each individual program. There was no way he could answer with which programs those would be right now. Because he was being truthful, as opposed to McCain.
 
  • #54
Evo said:
Obama made sense, he said that you would have to look at each individual program. There was no way he could answer with which programs those would be right now. Because he was being truthful, as opposed to McCain.

Exactly: I have much more time for politicians who admit they can't answer questions, rather than say something and then contradict it in the future, when they get into office.

I think Obama's response was the best one can hope for: he pointed out what his important areas were, and admitted that some long term spending may need to be cut.
 
  • #55
Cyrus said:
Im not sure, is this sarcasm?

Not quite sure what you mean , it was not meant to be a sarcastic post i.e. I'm not degrading any nation.
 
  • #56
cristo said:
Exactly: I have much more time for politicians who admit they can't answer questions, rather than say something and then contradict it in the future, when they get into office.

I think Obama's response was the best one can hope for: he pointed out what his important areas were, and admitted that some long term spending may need to be cut.

Obama also mentioned that McCain would make the cuts with an ax where a scalpel may be more appropriate. McCain got that grin and bear it look on his face.
 
  • #57
Cyrus said:
What vow's do you and Bill Clinton have together?
sorry, he took an oath not a vow

LowlyPion said:
And do you also demand that your doctor be faithful to his wife? There is no aspect of the Oath of Office that extends to the personal life of the President as it would relate to the actions between consenting adults. Just as there is no aspect of the Hippocratic Oath that either suggests celibacy or a strictly monogamous spousal relationship.

You of course are free to like or dislike or respect him or not, but the moral police aspect of things, delving into the Personal life in that fashion, with the expectation that anyone had any right to receive any answers, I happen to think is out of bounds. There are numerous historical references to infidelity in the White House, from Washington that took being the Father of his country more literally than polite society would expect, to FDR, to Kennedy and Jefferson and likely others too that were never reported. Would we disqualify the brightest and most able on such thinly drawn Puritanical standards? That of course is not my choice, as it applies to the conduct of their personal lives and with respect to the activities of consenting adults.

Why am I the only person who seems to be able to take in facts and understand what they mean AND if the facts warrant it, change my opinion, or at least address them in my argument? I have to respect someone in order to have them lead me. I don't care about ANYONE's sexual behavior, but if my doctor was screwing his receptionist when he should be treating my anal fissures then yes I have a problem. My big problem with Clinton, as I've said over and over is that he lied to me. I don't respect people who lie to me. Do I forgive other presidents who lied to me? NO, but I was too young to pay attention to the others.
 
  • #58
tribdog said:
Why am I the only person who seems to be able to take in facts and understand what they mean AND if the facts warrant it, change my opinion, or at least address them in my argument? I have to respect someone in order to have them lead me. I don't care about ANYONE's sexual behavior, but if my doctor was screwing his receptionist when he should be treating my anal fissures then yes I have a problem. My big problem with Clinton, as I've said over and over is that he lied to me. I don't respect people who lie to me. Do I forgive other presidents who lied to me? NO, but I was too young to pay attention to the others.

Which brings us back to Bush.:rolleyes:
 
  • #59
BTW; did anyone else feel ripped off by this debate? Throughout the campaign, this has been scheduled as a debate about national security. More than half the debate was about the economy. Now at some point there's going to be a debate about the economy; I sure hope they devote at least half of it to national security.
 
  • #60
tribdog said:
sorry, he took an oath not a vow

He took an oath not to lie to you?

He took an oath to uphold the constitution and laws.
 
  • #61
LURCH said:
BTW; did anyone else feel ripped off by this debate? Throughout the campaign, this has been scheduled as a debate about national security. More than half the debate was about the economy. Now at some point there's going to be a debate about the economy; I sure hope they devote at least half of it to national security.

Not really. I think the debate was relevant to the events that are most topical.

I'm guessing that you want McCain to get the chance to repeat his line about "what Obama doesn't understand" while he throws out some more dumbed-down misrepresentations of Obama's positions, that if McCain truly thinks are his positions, suggests that in his cartoon, cardboard cut out landscape of Foreign Policy, that McCain lacks even the merest rudiments of insight into the positions of our allies or our enemies.

Hopefully, we will have a new President with the skill to use the chess pieces of Diplomacy and National Power with deftness and grace, and not prone to the polarizing demands of his ideology, nor punctuated by erratic decision making like McCain has displayed, that shows little apparent strategic guile.

Given the potential for intervening events, like Palin thoroughly destroying whatever hope McCain might ever have had, or further deterioration of the economy, it may be that the follow on debates at this point really are only an opportunity for McCain to further embarrass himself, rather than scoring anything damaging against Obama.
 
  • #63
  • #64
Cyrus said:
Obama too many pauses like he's thinking about what to say as he's saying it.

Well we wouldn't a President that thought about what he said before he said it.

After the last 8 years it's hard to remember what that was like.
 
  • #65
LowlyPion said:
Well we wouldn't a President that thought about what he said before he said it.

After the last 8 years it's hard to remember what that was like.

Sorry, this is a debate. Know what you're going to say. To be clear, I think obama is a terrible speaker in general. He..he...always pauses for a while....and then...says..says a few words over again.......and pauses to buy...to buy time.

It's horribly annoying.
 
  • #66
edward said:
Which brings us back to Bush.:rolleyes:
I've already said I can't stand Bush. I can cross the aisle and hate both sides. something some people here don't seem to be able to do.

Cyrus said:
He took an oath not to lie to you?

He took an oath to uphold the constitution and laws.

I've always thought you were an intelligent person and seemed like a nice guy, but this one stupid thread has made me not like you. This is why I stay out of this forum, it makes me not like people. I should never have come in here. You just go on thinking its okay to lie. Whatever it takes to get ahead, right? It's a disgusting attitude and you disgust me. I'm done with this f'ing conversation.
 
  • #67
tribdog said:
I've already said I can't stand Bush. I can cross the aisle and hate both sides. something some people here don't seem to be able to do.



I've always thought you were an intelligent person and seemed like a nice guy, but this one stupid thread has made me not like you. This is why I stay out of this forum, it makes me not like people. I should never have come in here. You just go on thinking its okay to lie. Whatever it takes to get ahead, right? It's a disgusting attitude and you disgust me. I'm done with this f'ing conversation.

:smile: Geez tribby, relaxxxxx. :-p

You love me. I'm old enough to realize there are some things that I don't care about in terms of other people's lives. If he had sex, that's his business. If he lied to me about it, I really don't care. It's not an important issue to me. I don't see how he was going to get ahead by lying. He was at the end of his second term.
 
  • #68
Cyrus said:
Sorry, this is a debate.

Aside from being ready to handle Press Conferences, the skill of debate seems a bit over-rated as a skill.

Surely it is important for elections to an extent, as the American electorate seems inclined to want to see a bit of a sport made of it. But frankly I would as soon have a President that executed skillfully in developing pragmatic solutions to gain strategic results.
 
  • #69
LowlyPion said:
Aside from being ready to handle Press Conferences, the skill of debate seems a bit over-rated as a skill.

Surely it is important for elections to an extent, as the American electorate seems inclined to want to see a bit of a sport made of it. But frankly I would as soon have a President that executed skillfully in developing pragmatic solutions to gain strategic results.

All that's great. But it's a televised debate. Not a press conference, not a problem solving competition. If you want to win, you have to debate well. Debate is important because it shows who can think on their toes and outwit the other guy and smash him to the ground using facts.
 
  • #70
From FoxNews
FoxNews said:
Who won the first presidential debate in Oxford?

John McCain (52%)
Barack Obama (48%)

This is not a scientific poll.
http://elections.foxnews.com/

There is no doubt at all the FoxNews site is not scientific. It's seemingly totally biased, unashamed, 24/7 McCain all the way.

In fact any pretense at objectivity is wholly unbelievable.

If this number reflects actual numbers of Fox-o-philes, then McCain is apparently facing a landslide defeat.
 
  • #71
Cyrus said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aM923sttcs&feature=related

Obama: 0
McCain: 1

I thought McCain made a stronger point on the business tax being very high.

McCain mentioned that we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world of 35%.

That was a clever move by the McCain gang. People were then thinking "wow did you hear that." My wife remarked "I didn't know that did you Eddie?" It was a great distraction.

Many people were not yet back on focus when Obama then mentioned that most of those companies pay no taxes at all because of loop holes.
 
  • #73
edward said:
McCain mentioned that we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world of 35%.

That was a clever move by the McCain gang. People were then thinking "wow did you hear that." My wife remarked "I didn't know that did you Eddie?" It was a great distraction.

Many people were not yet back on focus when Obama then mentioned that most of those companies pay no taxes at all because of loop holes.

No, I took that into account. Why? Small businesses. I don't think they have the same loopholes that major ones do. So, most mom and pop shops would more than likely be stuck with high taxes on their profits.

35% is a solid figure. I'd like to have seen obama present a ballpark figure of how much is reduced by loop holes %-wise, and how many business are able to do this.
 
  • #74
LowlyPion said:
Well we wouldn't want a President that thought about what he said before he said it.

After the last 8 years it's hard to remember what that was like.

:smile: :smile: :smile:

I didn't find Obama's speech pattern in the least bit annoying.

But then again, I grew up watching William Shatner. And one of my favorite speakers spoke with quite extended pauses; Jacob http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA"ronowski.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
tribdog said:
If I trust you and you look me in the eye and promise me you are telling the truth when you aren't then I have been betrayed. It doesn't matter what it is about, it is the act of lying TO ME that I can't forgive.
Every single President has lied to the people. Only some of the lies make primetime though.
 
  • #77
Cyrus said:
All that's great. But it's a televised debate. Not a press conference, not a problem solving competition. If you want to win, you have to debate well. Debate is important because it shows who can think on their toes and outwit the other guy and smash him to the ground using facts.

True, but first you must know the facts and have better answers. Then you need to present them well.

Interestingly, people who have never debated often think debate is about tricks and cleverness. But anyone who has debated knows that it is all about preparation and knowledge of the subject.
 
  • #78
Ivan Seeking said:
True, but first you must know the facts and have better answers.

Yes, exactly. His ummm, well uhh...I ......I'd just like to say...to say that.

Has got to stop. He needs to look at McCain and say 'John, you're wrong because of fact x,y,z, that is in direct opposition to your claims'.

Throw him to the ground and don't stop until he's dead. No mercy. Make him look wrong in every thing he brings up. Don't give him an inch.
 
Last edited:
  • #79
I file as an LLC, and speaking as a small business owner, I have no complaints about the tax rate. If I had to pay taxes on my net income, my rate would be much higher, but the laws are designed to give tremendous breaks - it you take advantage of them - that reduce my effective rate dramatically. There were years that I did quite well but hardly paid any taxes at all. It was a matter of learning how to spend money to gain the maximum advantage.
 
  • #80
Also, WAY too much. "John, you're right"...'your absolutely right john'

I thought Obama did a good job holding up. But he didnt win. McCain was running the show there.

My vote is in: McCain won but it was close



On the issue of Kissinger, he was dead wrong. Kissinger clearly said to have talks with Iran right away.

When it came to knowing what's going on, on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, McCain came out on top. He's been there, and he's familiar with the surrounding region. Obama had nothing to say to that when McCain brought it up. That was a big problem.


To be perfectly honest, I don't dislike McCains stance on many issues (military and nuclear fuels with offshore drilling). But Palin is a total fool. For that reason alone, I could never vote for him. Had he picked someone like Tom Ridge, I'd consider voting for them.
 
Last edited:
  • #81
tribdog; said:
It has nothing to do with sex. I have sex every single night whether I'm alone or not. It is about breaking your vows and lying to me. It is about being a man of your word. THAT means something.

Personally, I believe that great charismatic male leaders more often than not tend to f#$% around. Kennedy, Clinton, FD Roosevelt, and who knows how many more before the advent of modern news. The only ones who might not have are Lincoln and Teddy, but I am not sure about Teddy. Lincoln was obsessed with his wife, from what I've read.

We don't have definitive proof that Benjamin Franklin cheated on his wife. But the lecherous old dude seriously flirted with/ had correspondence with about a dozen women thirty or more years younger than him.

And there was a great leader in our family two generations ago. Did amazing work for the state: reviving cultural arts, implementing foreign management techniques, and doing diplomatic work. The guy was a hound-dog. We found postcards from women from Britain, Canada, etc after he died.

Faithful presidents: John Adams, George Bush II, Reagan, Jimmy Carter.

It might be the testosterone.
 
  • #82
Why do I sense that Obama supporters everywhere need some reassurance...

It's ok relax...Obama won the beauty contest and the sound bite contest...as expected.

But unfortunately, he STILL wants to increase spending!Maybe this will help... Attention Senator Obama:

There is no money, there is no money, we have no money, we can't print enough money to pay for this bailout, the last bailout, the war, the escalating Afghan war, or any of your additional giveaway plans. We appreciate giveaways but someone has to pay for them...and to pay we need better paying jobs.

ALL of the existing programs (like medicare) need to be trimmed of fat and waste...people WITH health insurance have to wait 4 hours in the emergency room with a broken wrist because people on the government health program are in the front of the line with their runny noses and nagging coughs...all spending needs to be reviewed (tell me you want to stop excessive profiteering on foodstamps - so people can have more food for the same amount of money)...we need a freeze on all spending increases - including government wages and benefits (federal workers are oblivious to the fact that we need to borrow money to make their payroll every week)...all the do is complain about their cost of living increases and limits of their cars for personal use.

No money means no money...Obama is like a kid in the cereal aisle talking to his friend..."I want this and that and those and ohhh some of that...my mom says she doesn't have any money but she'll do what I say...help me put them in the buggy...she pays for groceries with her credit card and won't even know until we get home and it'll be too late"...if she notices...we'll blame my older brother.

Be honest, how many times have you heard on the street..."I don't care as long as I gets mine"?

Well, the truth is that everyone who got theirs better enjoy it while it lasts...because we're broke and Obama is determined to make it worse!

Obama is all talk...he has never RUN anything...(and what was that ad about last spring where he said he dabbled in drugs as a teenager?)...he's a one term Senator...who's been pushed onto the national scene because he's trendy and tested well...similar to the way you test a movie then send it back to the director, promote it and do a big premiere. No wonder...he's Hollywood's guy.

If you want to cite interviews...re-watch the 60 minutes spot when the reporter asked him point blank about his inexperience. All he could do was babble.

I'm sincere in my beliefs and respectful of you opinions...so, please allow me to thank you in advance for your kind responses and requests for small donations to the Obama fund.
 
  • #83
Cyrus said:
When it came to knowing what's going on, on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, McCain came out on top. He's been there, and he's familiar with the surrounding region. Obama had nothing to say to that when McCain brought it up. That was a big problem.
Yes, Obama should have reminded the people that the so-called expert on Iraq doesn't know the difference between Sunni and Shia.
 
  • #84
WhoWee said:
and what was that ad about last spring where he said he dabbled in drugs as a teenager?)

....seriously. You got something better to bring up?

Talk about sleazy cheapshot Whowee...

ALL of the existing programs (like medicare) need to be trimmed of fat and waste...people WITH health insurance have to wait 4 hours in the emergency room with a broken wrist because people on the government health program are in the front of the line with their runny noses and nagging coughs.

People with runny noses and nagging coughs don't go to an ER room...what's your point?
 
  • #85
Well at least I know you read the whole thing...but seriously, why DID he say that? Was that to avoid the whole Clinton inhale thing or to build a street rep for a straight guy?

Any other reason escapes me?
 
  • #86
WhoWee said:
Well at least I know you read the whole thing...but seriously, why DID he say that? Was that to avoid the whole Clinton inhale thing or to build a street rep for a straight guy?

Any other reason escapes me?

Who cares? He was a teenager. Get over it. Move on. Do you want to interview the first girl he had sex with too?

Let's be real here.
 
  • #87
Not really...and I agree and don't care about that...I just don't know why HE would bring it up?

The rest of the stuff...I do care about...Obama worries me...I don't trust him.
 
  • #88
WhoWee said:
Not really...and I agree and don't care about that...I just don't know why HE would bring it up?

The rest of the stuff...I do care about...Obama worries me...I don't trust him.


What do I care why 'HE' brought it up? Maybe he was trying to show he's made mistakes in the past and grew from them. You'll have to ask HIM that if you want to know. I'm not a mind reader.

Explain why you don't trust him? I don't know what you mean by this.
 
  • #89
People on state sponsored medical programs don't go to the doctor...they go to emergency...that is my point.

Go to an emergency room and look around...85% of the people don't have insurance and aren't injured.
 
  • #90
WhoWee said:
Obama is all talk...he has never RUN anything..

He has run a campaign that took down Hillary and is defeating McCain. With all of McCain's experience, one would think there would be no contest. How many campaigns has McCain run? So much for experience. And the same goes for the war in Iraq. A State Senator saw where McCain was blind. All of McCain's experience only led him to the wrong decisions. Why? Because he had the wrong kind of experience! He is an old war dog, so of course he voted for war when there was no need for it.

Last night McCain was in his strong suit - national security and foreign affairs. But the Jr Senator is generally perceived to have won. So much for experience.

It reminds me a bit of my days in competitive swimming. I trained and trained for years - up to eight hours a day all summer long a couple of years - but in the end I couldn't compete against people who were true talents. And no amount of training could make the difference.
 
Last edited:
  • #92
WhoWee said:
There is no money, there is no money, we have no money, we can't print enough money to pay for this bailout, the last bailout, the war, the escalating Afghan war, or any of your additional giveaway plans.
So let's vote for the dude that wants to cut tax revenues and escalate more wars.
 
  • #93
He ran a campaign?

Wow...he IS qualified to run the United States of America.Obama is an unknown quantity (his 4(?) years in the Senate appear to be a preparation for this run)...his resume is not that impressive...I don't think anyone would hire him to run a multi-national corporation based on his experience...do you?
 
  • #94
So why isn't McCain winning? After thirty years, you would think he could at least take down a Jr Senator without even breathing hard.

Last night he should have made mince meat out of the young Obama. So much for experience.

And if you want to talk about his resume, then we need to consider intellectual horsepower, which is McCain's real shortcoming. And no amount of training will make the difference.
 
  • #95
I found a link to Obama's resume...please read

http://obamasresume.org/Then, if you want a little diversion this is a comparison of Obama's resume to Palin's

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #96
Doesn't it bother you that a first term Senator is named to 5 or 6 (?) major committees (chair on 1)...and in only his 3rd year he's selected to run for President?

This appears to me that he was fast-tracked without a chance to make mistakes.

McCain is losing because people are sick of Bush and want change.

Again, Obama scares me because we really don't know him.
 
  • #97
Cyrus;1891509 Iran doesn't have a "republican guard" Ahmadinejad. Let's all say it together. Ahhhh-madin----ejad. It's really not THAT hard.[/QUOTE said:
Clearly, Mc Cain meant to say “Revolutionary Guard”. It is, I think, a very understandable slip and nothing I would judge a man by. Remember when Obama introduced Biden as “the next President” at the Democratic convention? Everyone makes these kind of slips all the time. The name “Ahmadinejad” probably stuck in his throat because of revulsion for such a dangerous fanatic. When I say that name I feel like spitting as well. But when it came to Russia and Georgia, Mc Cain had all the facts and first-hand experience and has Putin’s number down pat! I judge Mc Cain to be a good and honest man who will do what is best for his country. I don’t know what to make of Obama as he is still an unknown quantity and I have serious reservations about his past involvement with some fairly radical people as well as his naïve remarks about Pakistan. Pull ou of Iraq, but bomb Pakistan without consulting the Pakistan government? I vote for Mc Cain to have won the debate and I will be voting for him in November as well.
 
  • #98
IMO, McCain's statements about his "league of democracies" made the difference between the candidates clear.
 
  • #99
WhoWee said:
Then, if you want a little diversion this is a comparison of Obama's resume to Palin's

I fully expect anyone that falls for something as idiotic as that to be in perpetual awe of Sarah Palin's intellectual prowess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
Cyrus said:
All that's great. But it's a televised debate. Not a press conference, not a problem solving competition. If you want to win, you have to debate well. Debate is important because it shows who can think on their toes and outwit the other guy and smash him to the ground using facts.

Press conferences are simple: you go and stand in front of a group of invited press and basically read a speech that someone else has written off a card. A debate is completely different and, in my opinion, McCain did not look at all comfortable debating, and did not really want to enter into it. He would much rather that it were a press conference so he could read things off a card, rather than have to respond directly to Obama. You mention Obama uming and ahhing, but personally I don't think that is a bad trait whatsoever: it showed he took time to think about his question before rushing in and giving an answer. Thus, there was far less chance of him saying something that turned out to be wrong. In all, he looked more professional, comfortable, and a far more calmer choice for president.

You later mention McCain's comments on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, it's apparent that McCain has visited the area, but I don't think this is equivalent to him 'knowing what is going on.' Sure, you can visit as much as you like, but does he really know what it's like? Did he really go to the front line, and if he did, did he really see the typical view of a typical soldier? I doubt that very much.

Still, I don't see that this is a positive trait. In this day and age, we don't need our leaders literally taking us into war. Every leader, be he a president, prime minister, etc.. has aides, and people who are much better versed in certain areas to assist in making decisions. A president doesn't need to know everything, but rather needs to make decisions in a calm, collected manner. This, to me, is far more important than whether a candidate has visited a war area or not.
 

Similar threads

News 1st Presidential Debate (2016) thread
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
News Can Romney regain credibility after his Cairo/Libya Embassy blunder?
Replies
45
Views
7K
News Presidential Powers in Perspective
Replies
22
Views
4K
Programs Really need advice on what to major in
Replies
9
Views
2K
News Justice Department Drops Voter Intimidation Case
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
News Is the Media Neglecting to Report Iraqi Insurgent Casualties?
Replies
32
Views
4K
News Did Scott Brown's Win Signal a Shift in American Political Landscape?
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • Poll Poll
News What say should the church have in politics?
Replies
12
Views
4K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
Replies
29
Views
10K
News The lie of media liberal bias continued.
Replies
21
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top