In the past debates, I have called them close draw, even steven with a slight leaning one way or the other.<br><br>Tonight I call the debte for Obama!<br><br>McCain's snide sarcasm tonight on way too many times showed me what a loser he really is.<br><br><br><br>President Obama, bless you young man!<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
The winner: Obama (-again!)<br>I can't believe McSame is complaining about the 'negative campaign ads' of the Obama camp! <br>Un freakin' believable!!!<br><br>[color:blue][/b]Hodie mihi. Cras tibi.</font color=blue>[/b]
McCain - 51%<br>Obama - 49%<br><br>Sorry - McCain finally came through even on the closing statements <-- Buts its to late<br><br>Obama yes thats right needed to continue write things down - LOL<br><br>
I think McCain owned the first 20 min...<br>but the last 45 were Obama's.<br>McCains body language and anger during some of Obama's answers will be focused on.<br>They spent far too much time on Ayers, and John Lewis... IF McCain wants an apology - Call John Lewis, fool !! Don't expect one from Obama - he didn't make the statement !! <br>And McCain's camp said NOTHING to stop the hate remarks at their rallies. <br>Someone told me that the FBI talked to them and told them if violence against Obama happened. they could be held partially responsible. Palin's rhetoric especially was inflammatory ! I don't know if that's true, but it does make some sense. The audacity was that McCain complaisn about "negative ads" <br>HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !<br> Bunk !!<br><br>David (OFI)
[color:blue]Someone told me that the FBI talked to them and told them if violence against Obama happened. they could be held partially responsible</font color=blue> <-- Complete BULL SHIIT sorry<br><br>[color:blue]I think McCain owned the first 20 min...<br>but the last 45 were Obama's</font color=blue> <-- I give it 31 minutes and Obama 29<br><br>McCain did do better then Obama when its all and said - but at the 3rd debate its way to late<br><br>
I have to say that McCain showed real mastery of the [relatively] passive aggressive attack. At the same time, I'm really really curious about what he meant when he said that Obama had been running negative ads because one of his ads attacked McCain's policy position of something or other. Isn't that what's supposed to happen? <br><br>[color:red]</font color=red> [color:orange]</font color=orange> [color:yellow]</font color=yellow> [color:green]</font color=green> [color:blue]</font color=blue> [color:purple]</font color=purple>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
Obama ads again far out striped McCains on all fronts - but Obama negative ads mostly ran in swing states <-- I seen a few here but due to buying Regional ad blocks they just ran no matter what<br><br>
Indeed! An ad "attacking" McCain's health care proposals is not an attack ad (for crying out loud). Attack ads smear your opponent's loyalty and character. How can St. McCain not know the difference?<br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.