It's the official last Presidential Debate thread!

[you_with_the_face]

Everytime he directs a comment to Obama, McCain looks like he’s gonna burst a vein or something.

He’s whiny and bitchy. Obama’s calmness in stark contrast to McCain’s wound up demeanor. He’s like a Jack Russel.

And now I see that Obama gets the last word. Goodie.

[The_Second_Stone]

@elfkin477

Which one bill of rights does the right to an abortion fall under?

If you had read Roe v. Wade you would know the answer to that question. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113 Is the text.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 -9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484 -485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed “fundamental” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 -542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

[Drain_Bead]

If they were doing another one of these, I’d add “Here’s the thing” to the drink list.

We have to make health care avoidable.

[Gozu]

Did McCain mix up Down syndrome and autism when he mentionned Sarah Palin?

[C3]

McCain’s closing remarks sound like an argument to vote for Obama. Cool! He’s with us, too!

[carnivorousplant]

Is Obama wearing blue eye shadow? Could this go the way of Nixon’s five o’clock shadow?

[Crowbar_of_Irony_3]

At least, McCain doesn’t get to go second in the closing statements.

And in theeee end, you have to pay out of your wallets for better education; while not increasing taxes.

[Biggirl]

Obama gets the last last word. How much you wanna bet McCain will interupt and wanna say one more thing about what he knows. And probably a last shout out to Joe the Rich Plumber.

[ladyfoxfyre]

@Kyla

Military should be able to become teachers without taking tests? No offense to military, but teaching is fucking hard. It takes training and hard work. That’s just a batshit crazy idea.

No shit.

[Kolga]

@Sampiro

I’m recalling Eddie Izzard’s line about the royal family: “So you’re a plumber… what on Earth is that?”

Thank you, I just spit Jameson all over my monitor, you magnificent bastard.

[SmartAleq]

Yeah, let’s let soldiers with possible PTSD and undiagnosed head injuries go straight into teaching without any further education or licensing so we can make sure our kindergartners can field strip a rifle in ten seconds, w00t!

[Drain_Bead]

@Gozu

Did McCain mix up Down syndrome and autism when he mentionned Sarah Palin?

He did it twice.

[Merijeek]

McCain looked ready to blow, Obama looked calm.

But I think McCain did a better job - Obama let him get away with too much crap, IMO.

-Joe

[Frank]

This one was not a draw.

Obama kicked ass.

[eleanorigby]

God–I’m glad it’s over. I think Obama did well, but McCain didn’t do too badly. Not nearly as badly as the prior ones.

McCain is too petulant for my taste–no matter his positions.

[Sampiro]

McCain is more machine than human now isn’t he?

And by machine I mean sleaze.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

I think Senator Lizard Tongue thinks Sarah Palin’s kid has autism!

[elfkin477]

@SmartAleq

Ninth Amendment.

Ah, here I figured people would cite the 3rd.

[ShermanAter]

McSame can suck my fucking cock

[alphaboi867]

Why would Sarah Palin be famliar with autism?