So, who won the debate?

[hottiescientist]

Getting back to the debate , I finally watched it.

I thought it was kind of strange that the moderator kept trying to get the two to talk to each other, like he was trying to get them to fight. Is that typical of presidential debates? I haven't watched that much of any.

It's actually not all that common. Apparently, it used to be more common and then it was more about directing your answers to the moderator. But its up to the Commission on Presidential debates to how they set up the rules and both parties after discussing these things with the commission. Lehrer was following the guidelines from the commission but I think at first neither candidate was really used to it. But the first televised debates were Kennedy-Nixon so maybe they're still trying to figure out what kind of debate style is best for what kind of pair (or trio) of candidates.

 

[hiitdogs]

Sorry - I can claim only a quarter German in my blood - hence the slow uptake on the joke.

Now, see, THAT is the problem, Baylian, you are a quarter German, I am half German It's that German stubborness and lack of humor that gets us into trouble

Siren, don't even try putting humor and German together. It ain't working Nice try though

 

[Shelshula]

Charts are nice, but only if you understand what they are saying. (Not to say that Hottiescientist doesn't understand the chart, but I had to go to the CDC website to figure out what the heck it was saying in terms of rates and ratios.)

The CDC started tracking legal abortions in 1969. The chart starts in 1973. At the time the rate of abortions was 196 per 1,000 live births (or 1.96%) it peaked in 1984 at 365 per 1,000 live births (or 3.65%) in 2002 it was back down to 246 per 1,000 (or 2.36%)

a random guess of less the 1/2 a percent isn't that far from 2.56%. The actual rates of abortion in this country are actually pretty low.

A look further down the page at the CDC will show the reader "Figure 2" which shows the majority of legal abortions are in the age group "<15"; which is also the age group most likely to seek out an illegal abortion.

I won't debate that having an abortion is a sin, but there are a lot of sinful things which are legal. If you are really interested in reducing the number of abortions then encourage proper sex education in schools so that children are able to get the correct information.

SirenSongWoman's point is not negated by her having been off on the statistic she guessed at.

Abortion alone should not be the determining issue as to who you vote for in the Presidential election. There are serious issues about the economy, global warming, foreign policy and 2 wars which have to be addressed if we want to avoid serious or even catastrophic consequences.

Proper regulation of the financial markets, or the lack thereof, will have a direct effect upon you personally. It can effect whether or not you have a job to go to or how soon you'll be able to retire (if at all).

And while I'm at it...

People complain about having to pay for social programs until its time for them to receive benefits. Workman's comp, unemployment, social security, college grants, medicare for senior citizens, all social programs.

And the Major parties don't care if you vote independent, because it just means your not voting for the opposition. It's like Pamela Anderson and KFC. KFC doesn't care what PETA or Pamela think about chicken because nothing KFC does will suddenly make a bunch of vegans eat at KFC. If you want to change them you need to be part of the customer base.

If you want Republican's out of office you HAVE to vote Democrat, if you don't want a Democrat as President, you HAVE to vote Republican. Voting Independent is as effective as not voting at all. It might help with a lower position, but it won't help at the Presidential level.

In all fairness, I am covering a bunch of previous posts by a number of people in this. I only name two people, but I'm too tired to look up everyone else's names.

 

[Stephanie0523]

Like I said..........if you're not against abortion, then you're in favor of abortion. The baby has no "choice." And, if you would vote in favor of same sex marriage, then you're pro same sex marriage. God has been taken out of the equation on both issues and as a Christian, I will be voting my faith.

So, are you saying it's impossible to be a Christian AND a liberal Democrat? If so, I heartily disagree. I will be voting my faith too. I am a Christian, and a very proud Democrat. Shocking, I know. I'm tired of Republicans thinking they are the "Christian" party. I am pro-life. But when I compare both of the parties, Democrats, to me, are more pro-life than Republicans. Yes, Republicans are anti-abortion, but does that mean they are more "pro-life"--I don't think so. If so, then they would be against capitol punishment and would not be so quick to enter into needless wars that kill thousands of young soldiers. Are those lives not as precious? The next time a Republican accuses me of not being "pro-life" I think they should take a hard look in the mirror and consider the party they support. Who decides which lives are more precious than others? My faith teaches me that a life is a life. Regardless of whether it's a person who is imprisoned or a young soldier or a fetus. My faith teaches me that only God should determine who lives and who dies. I also believe that through social programs the Democrats have proven they care more for quality of life for all, as well. I file that under "pro-life" too. Yes there are people who abuse the social welfare programs, but there are people who reap their benefits too, and their "lives" should not be ignored.

I say all of this, just to let you know that there is more than one way to look at it. It's not so black and white. Both parties appeal to people of faith for different reasons, and to single out one or two issues as the sole reason for voting for someone is irresponsible.

 

[Shelshula]

I agree whole heartedly with Stephanie.

Very well said Stephanie.

 

[hottiescientist]

Charts are nice, but only if you understand what they are saying. (Not to say that Hottiescientist doesn't understand the chart, but I had to go to the CDC website to figure out what the heck it was saying in terms of rates and ratios.)

The CDC started tracking legal abortions in 1969. The chart starts in 1973. At the time the rate of abortions was 196 per 1,000 live births (or 1.96%) it peaked in 1984 at 365 per 1,000 live births (or 3.65%) in 2002 it was back down to 246 per 1,000 (or 2.36%)

a random guess of less the 1/2 a percent isn't that far from 2.56%. The actual rates of abortion in this country are actually pretty low.

I really wish this weren't the case, but you're off by an order of magnitude. It's a bit scary to think of it like that sometimes (and we should think of it more like rates than percentages because of the way the math computes). I think what you were doing was 196/1000 --> 19.6% not 1.96%.

 

[Shelshula]

That's what happens when it's 2:00 AM and you do math in your head..

I pulled out the calculator when I read your post and you are right. That is a terribly embarassing mistake.

I told you charts could be complicated.

Yes, 19.6% is an unfortunate amount. It doesn't change the point that SirenSongWoman was trying to make or the point that the way to reduce abortions is to educate people so that fewer people want them. Making something illegal does not make the demand go down. If that's all it took Prohibition and the Drug war would have gone better.

Also, your right rates is better then percentages. Percentages is wrong. It doesn't really capture it.

 

[hottiescientist]

That's what happens when it's 2:00 AM and you do math in your head..

I pulled out the calculator when I read your post and you are right. That is a terribly embarassing mistake.

I told you charts could be complicated.

Yes, 19.6% is an unfortunate amount. It doesn't change the point that SirenSongWoman was trying to make or the point that the way to reduce abortions is to educate people so that fewer people want them. Making something illegal does not make the demand go down. If that's all it took Prohibition and the Drug war would have gone better.

I agree completely about education and I want that abortion rate to be less than half a percent so much. (And charts can be complicated, I'm just so used to them at this point that its easier than reading posts on a forum! too much time in lab, I know...) But the statistics are sobering and I definitely don't want people who share my opinion on the issue to downplay anything.

 

[SirenSongWoman]

Now, see, THAT is the problem, Baylian, you are a quarter German, I am half German It's that German stubborness and lack of humor that gets us into trouble

Siren, don't even try putting humor and German together. It ain't working Nice try though

<sigh> Well, at least you appreciated my attempt.

Perhaps my silliness comes from my Scottish ancestry? No? French? English? Okay, none of these are working. I'll shut up now.

 

[autumn]

I thought Obama won, and I am not an Obama supporter.

I'm voting third party candidate.

I am considering this. I am in the minority here, and I'm going to borrow Diane's verbiage to state the opposite - I am vehemently pro-life and this issue is one of the most important issues I consider. Neither party supports life to my satisfaction. I don't feel that either party is more pro-life, but I'd be choosing the less pro-choice. Ugg! I was pro-choice for many years, but a position in an abortion clinic along with my position in OB changed me. It isn't a religious issue or a women's reproductive rights issue. It is a human rights issue.

Anyway, like Stepahine, there are other important issues. My other hot issue is social programs for the poor, most likely because of my childhood. This is where the Democratic party and I agree to an extent.

BTW, I am really looking forward to the VP debate.

 

[SirenSongWoman]

People complain about having to pay for social programs until its time for them to receive benefits. Workman's comp, unemployment, social security, college grants, medicare for senior citizens, all social programs.

And don't forget BANKRUPTCY, which many of you will be filing for once the full impact of our nation's economic nightmare hits home, regardless of who sits in the whitehouse. You just don't know it yet.

 

[SirenSongWoman]

I agree whole heartedly with Stephanie.

Very well said Stephanie.

Here! Here! Excellent, Stephanie.

 

[SirenSongWoman]

I really wish this weren't the case, but you're off by an order of magnitude. It's a bit scary to think of it like that sometimes (and we should think of it more like rates than percentages because of the way the math computes). I think what you were doing was 196/1000 --> 19.6% not 1.96%.

I am SHOCKED that there are that many abortions. With the exception of a childhood friend who had 3 abortions (then became a radical conservative Republican, talk about CLASSIC), then had a son she adores (and became a radical liberal Democrat...), I don't know but a smattering of women who've had abortions, unless they're keeping quiet about it... which is obviously possible. Still, when the heated group abortion debates happen I never get the feeling anyone is speaking from their own experience... And while I STILL feel there are much more pressing issues RIGHT NOW than someone else's deeply personal, private dilemma I am surprised (and not entirely pleased) that, in this day and age, unwanted pregnancies still happen to anyone other than naive young girls who don't use birth control and are having unprotected sex.

 

[atgood]

I'm a longtime Independent, and I have liked and admired McCain for years. Having said that, though, all of my feelings about him these days are tempered by his selection of Palin as his running mate. And that's not so much about her, as it is about him and his (im)prudence and rashness in thinking she was prepared to be his second-in-command.

I think she is perfectly OK as govenor of Alaska, but with all of the global, cataclysmic turmoil going on today, in this country (economically) and elsewhere (militarily and diplomatically), I truly believe he did not think through his decision to choose her as his running mate, in terms of her readiness to serve. And that is unfair to her. If his goal was to choose a woman/Hillary surrogate, there are so many women from either party whoare much better prepared/better qualified than Palin, IMO. And for me, that casts doubt on him as a real leader in the broader sense.

These are the thoughts swirling in my mind as I watch all these debates unfold.

 

[teddy16410]

Getting back to the debate , I finally watched it.

I thought it was kind of strange that the moderator kept trying to get the two to talk to each other, like he was trying to get them to fight. Is that typical of presidential debates? I haven't watched that much of any.

They started out a bit rocky, I thought (and rambling), but got better from there.

I actually liked that part of the debate...I think when the candidates talk to each other you start to see (vs hear) who they really are.
Personally I felt that both candidates showed some "true colors" because of that. Regardless of party I am not inclined to believe words of "working across party lines" when someone wont look at another- I think McCain was "just this close" to rolling his eyes while Obama talked...He looked like it was a freakin' hardship to shake the mans hand at the beginning....

What happened to not having to hate/despise/detest the person while disagreeing on their views.... Lets face it- more debates & elections have beeen lost because of the nastiness that is caught on camera by these candidates NOT speaking.... I love seeing who these politicians are when they forget the cameras are rolling. I say SHOW me who you are & not who you SAY you are.

I have always preferred debates over any other form of gathering info...everything else is a snipitt & often times out of context... This way I get to hear full answers and demeanors & check out the facts myself.

 

[PhyllisG]

I think the moderator was making an attempt to foster at least the idea of a "debate" with the two candidates speaking directily to each other. What we have now is not a debate. I heard a reporter say she attended a debate between the two candidates for the French presidency and they sat down together at a table with two moderators and actually debated with each for two hours. It always frustrates me when the moderator asks a question, the candidate answers and the other doesn't get a chance to repond to that answer.
Also you might be waiting for Biden to make a gaffe but I don't think you will have to wait long for Palin to say something foolish. She might be a "nice" woman but she doesn't seem smart enough to even realize she isn't qualified. I have read conservative columnists want her to withdraw and I know there are bets on as to when she will be gone--but I doubt it.

 

[sparrow13]

So, are you saying it's impossible to be a Christian AND a liberal Democrat? If so, I heartily disagree. I will be voting my faith too. I am a Christian, and a very proud Democrat. Shocking, I know. I'm tired of Republicans thinking they are the "Christian" party. I am pro-life. But when I compare both of the parties, Democrats, to me, are more pro-life than Republicans. Yes, Republicans are anti-abortion, but does that mean they are more "pro-life"--I don't think so. If so, then they would be against capitol punishment and would not be so quick to enter into needless wars that kill thousands of young soldiers. Are those lives not as precious? The next time a Republican accuses me of not being "pro-life" I think they should take a hard look in the mirror and consider the party they support. Who decides which lives are more precious than others? My faith teaches me that a life is a life. Regardless of whether it's a person who is imprisoned or a young soldier or a fetus. My faith teaches me that only God should determine who lives and who dies. I also believe that through social programs the Democrats have proven they care more for quality of life for all, as well. I file that under "pro-life" too. Yes there are people who abuse the social welfare programs, but there are people who reap their benefits too, and their "lives" should not be ignored.

I say all of this, just to let you know that there is more than one way to look at it. It's not so black and white. Both parties appeal to people of faith for different reasons, and to single out one or two issues as the sole reason for voting for someone is irresponsible.

Nice post, Stephanie! Though I do disagree that Democrats have proven that they care more about the quality of life.

OK, I need coffee...

Sparrow

 

[sparrow13]

Why the need to penalize success? Just boggles the mind.

And I really don't care about a tax cut if the additional taxes on the "rich" are going to be used to fund social programs - i.e. - more people on the dole!!! And doing it just to get votes.

ITA. And there's no way Obama is going to be able to put his "government chicken in every pot" ideas into play without raising taxes on the middle class. NO way. He can say that now - and may even be sincere - but social programs have a way of ballooning because everybody wants a ride on gravy train. So, sooner or later, the middle class will get hit. Especially with this current crisis.

Sparrow

 

[sparrow13]

People complain about having to pay for social programs until its time for them to receive benefits. Workman's comp, unemployment, social security, college grants, medicare for senior citizens, all social programs.

If you want Republican's out of office you HAVE to vote Democrat, if you don't want a Democrat as President, you HAVE to vote Republican. Voting Independent is as effective as not voting at all. It might help with a lower position, but it won't help at the Presidential level.

I'm well aware that my vote with be a "throwaway" vote in terms of the end result but I'm voting my beliefs. Honestly it makes no difference to me whether it's Obama or McCain. One will get into office, and the Republicrat machine will crank on and on and on...

As for the other social programs you listed, AFAIK most of those are not straight government hand-outs except for Medicare. Don't businesses pay workers comp and unemployment benefits while the state simply oversees them? People who work pay into social security, it's not a freebie, and government college grants are often either a reward based on academic merit OR take the form of loans that need to be paid back with interest. Hardly a hand-out.

Those are vastly different than people who get on the dole and never get off while adding more and more children to the rolls. There are many many perfectly able-bodied people out there who sit back and collect food stamps, housing money, child care, and taxpayer funded insurance while never holding or keeping a job. I think most people are kind-hearted enough to know that some people truly need assistance on occasion, but the endless supporting of those who refuse to help themselves has to stop. It's part of what is bankrupting us.

Sparrow

 

[dorothyrd]

And don't forget BANKRUPTCY, which many of you will be filing for once the full impact of our nation's economic nightmare hits home, regardless of who sits in the whitehouse. You just don't know it yet.

OK, I don't get this. I work hard to not have debt. I am conservative about my money and when I bought a house, I made sure the mortgage was affordable and within budget. I did not listen to what the bank said I could borrow, I bought a modest home that I could afford. I don't run up credit cards. I drive cars long past them being paid off. I consider purchases, and decide if I have the money, not charge it and decide to pay later. I thought this is what most people do. So if many of us are going to have to file bankruptcy, than that means most of us do not live within our means now.

And in case you say, well I have a job, what if I lose it. Well both my husband and I work for the same place, and a few years ago there was a possibility. So we looked hard at finances and made sure we could handle that problem. Because we owe hardly any money to anyone, we are in a good place. Not to say losing our jobs would not be incredibly hard and stressful, just saying....don't borrow more than you can afford to pay back....something our government just does not understand.