[QUOTE="Etheral_Filcher"]

So go make a thread about it. If you really don't think Halo: Reach looks good, don't play it, buy it, or look at it. Whatever you do, just don't make anymore crappy bait threads.

lespaul1919

it's cool man, he was being sarcastic. he likes reach.

Maybe. Speculating at this point is useless though. No one here really knows. Everyone is just intuitively (or biasedly) pulling their answer out of thin air.

So go make a thread about it. If you really don't think Halo: Reach looks good, don't play it, buy it, or look at it. Whatever you do, just don't make anymore crappy bait threads.

weak flamebait.

I hate to say this...but I think it was a tie. Obama effectively parried McCain's attacks, McCain had good offense, and neither team did anything particularly well.

However, now that I have thought about if for awhile, McCain may have won, but just by a little bit. It was really close.

So, IMO, Obama won the first debate, the second debate was a tie, and the third debate was close, but I'm leaning toward McCain.

I strongly disagree. A McCain-Lieberman ticket would actually make the Dems ticket nearly unstoppable. Why? Because Lieberman is pro-choice, anti-gun, and pro-gay marriage. No conservative would ever want to vote for a person who does not share their fundamental values.

MysticGenie

Conservatives or democrats. Can you imagine Obama picking someone who was pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage, and anti-stem cell research?

[QUOTE="Etheral_Filcher"]

Hillary had 18 million votes in the primaries. Not picking her was a mistake. Obama was afraid that the Clintons would overshadow his message, but who cares? As long as you win the presidency, you can make the clintons do whatever you want, and Clinton would've helped him win the presidency.

Also, picking Biden directly contradicts Obama's message of "change." Biden has been a senator since Palin was nine. Barack has said we need to "change leadership in washington," and then picks a washington insider who is part of the senate (which has a lower approval rating than Bush).

duxup

Bidan contradicts Obama's message of change? But Hillary wouldn't have?

She would have too, but not as much as Biden. She is a woman, and there has never been a woman VP, so that is definetly "change." Also, the Clinton's would give Obama a ton of votes. More of Hillary's supporters, and a greater number of women would have voted for Obama if she was his VP pick.

What does Biden do? He appeals to Obama supporters, which doesn't matter because Obama supporters are already going to vote for Obama.

Hillary had 18 million votes in the primaries. Not picking her was a mistake. Obama was afraid that the Clintons would overshadow his message, but who cares? As long as you win the presidency, you can make the clintons do whatever you want, and Clinton would've helped him win the presidency.

Also, picking Biden directly contradicts Obama's message of "change." Biden has been a senator since Palin was nine. Barack has said we need to "change leadership in washington," and then picks a washington insider who is part of the senate (which has a lower approval rating than Bush).

Moreover, Biden will appeal to Obama supporters, but I don't see him dragging new people in to support Obama. He is male, and he's a talky liberal, just like Obama. Nothing new here.

I dislike Sarah Palin, but I don't think McCain could've made a better choice for himself. People have critized McCain for being old and out of touch, so he got someone who is young, female, and a hockey mom. Palin appeals to an entirely different demographic than stereotypical, old, conservative men.