SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Oct 03 2008 10:23 am

Biden won it hands down. I wanted Palin to do well, I really did. I needed a reason to understand why McCain picked her.

She didn't answer the deregulation question. Her "aw shucks" might work with morons, but she sounded like a talking head stuffed with info from the McCain campaign. When Biden pushed back, she evaded. If you're looking to see who'd you would want running the country should, god forbid, something happened to the President, Palin did herself no favors.

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

I didn't watch it, but I caught the reviews.

I was too busy watching Star Wars instead. It was definitely worth watching something I have seen a hundred times before rather than something crappy.

Either way one of the news casts after that detailed the event went on to say that they both lied their fucking faces off and don't know their asses from their elbows.

You can say whatever you want, but if it isn't true in 2008, the internet and media will fuck you up so hard.

STOP LYING!!! STOP FUCKING LYING!!!

It is also worth noting that they avoided a combined 16 questions by talking about other things instead of what they were asked.

Why is this country fucked right now? Because our leadership can't stand up and be honest with us. Not even a little bit.

Title: Title: Title: Title Joined: Sep 18 2008 Posts: 258

The thing about VP debates is - it doesn't matter who does better because statistics show that in past Vice Presidential debates it has had very little to no effect on voters or sway voters. It matters about who fucks up. And neither of them had any gaffes or fuck ups, so all in all, it was an uneventful evening.

Posted: Oct 03 2008 11:45 am

I thought Palin was worse though, replacing every answer with something about her home life.

Posted: Oct 03 2008 01:00 pm

Palin did better than I thought she would, but I still think she was outclassed by Biden. And her "gosh darn it's" and "you betcha" crap is just retarded.

That said, I was thinking filthy thoughts about her the entire time.

Joined: Jun 10 2008 Posts: 172

I think shes a perfectly nice person, but I don't want a vice president who when meeting with another head of state or at a meeting at the white house and wink at them and go "Gosh gee wilikers, I'm gonna have to set ya straight on that point ya know?"

I would agree with many conservative pundits that this is an argument of style vs substance but so far I haven't seen much substance in either debate from the Republican candidate, which is a shame. If this was the same John McCain that ran in 2000 I would vote for him hands down. They seem to be all about these Hail Mary plays which I think the vast majority of American's see right through (particularly suspending the campaign for one day). I don't know how accurate the recent polls are those they all seem to be tilting the same direction. If they are at all accurate McCain may not have any "good-will allowance" left with voters. People are scared shitless and I think (and post debate insta-polls back up my theory) are really trying to focus on what exactly the condidates would do to solves our problems and unfortunatly for the GOP they have not been addressing these issues in debates. We've just gotten lots of generalizations. In particular they really REALLY need to drop this Barack Obama will raise taxes thing. This is at best a half truth and everyone knows it. Obama is the one who has been laying out his tax plans in commercials, people know that the vast majority of them are going to get a tax cut. It would be one thing if the plan was cryptic or in any way confusing but its not. If you make less than 250,000 bucks you get a tax break, if you make more, you pay more.

McCain has some serious issues to overcome to regain his place in the polls.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Obviously republicans are going to agree with what Palin said, and dems with Biden. The real question is how undecideds interpreted the debate, and that greatly depends upon appearances and personality - or the contest to see who identifies more with the "every man". In this, I think Palin clearly won. She came off as more "real" and one of us. Biden, on the other hand, looked tired, pale, the lighting made him seem extremely old and wrinkly, he had chapped lips, dilated pupils, and I distinctly heard him sighing at Palin's responses at least once. In addition, the prepared statements he had such as his closing statement & a couple of stories, seemed awfully cliche, i.e., the old, typical things we hear from politicians in debates and speeches in every election. Frank Lutz's focus group on Fox, which is always a great, unbiased study of undecideds split evenly between Bush & Kerry voters, distinctly substantiated this.

Furthermore, while Gwen Ifill did mostly an unbiased job in spite of her pro-Obama book coming out, she did certainly give Biden the final word on too many occasions compared to Palin, asked one "gotcha" question that tried to connect the governor to Cheney, and cut off Palin for time once, while she often would let Biden go over the limit.

S. McCracken wrote:

She didn't answer the deregulation question.

In a follow-up she did. She clearly stated that McCain was for regulation of Fannie & Freddy in 2005 & 2006, but dems such as Biden blocked it. (She didn't mention democrat Barney Frank, who was a big part of it.)

APLETHORAOFPINATAS wrote:

In particular they really REALLY need to drop this Barack Obama will raise taxes thing. This is at best a half truth and everyone knows it. Obama is the one who has been laying out his tax plans in commercials, people know that the vast majority of them are going to get a tax cut. It would be one thing if the plan was cryptic or in any way confusing but its not. If you make less than 250,000 bucks you get a tax break, if you make more, you pay more.

Obama is being very misleading regarding taxes. He is proposing a trillion more dollars in spending for entitlement/social programs. You can't raise that money by just taxing the rich. It'll be even harder to get the tax money in the coming years in this economy. High tax revenue comes from a booming economy, and a President Obama might not have that. And as Palin mentioned last night, the last thing you want to do in a bad economy is raise taxes, especially when that will hit businesses hard, which will increase unemployment, exacerbating any recession.

Hell, I make only a five figure salary, and in the paycheck I got today, only 20% of it went to the government, under the Bush administration. With what Obama is proposing right now, I guarantee you, that at least 35% of my paycheck will be going to the government, and it might actually approach 50%. That kind of idiocy was where we were at under Carter, and believe me, Obama is running for Carter's second term.

Joined: Jun 10 2008 Posts: 172

50%, thats just silly hyperbole. and further more if he is being so misleading why aren't the republicans running adds explaining how hes being misleading? Why isn't this a major talking point? All they say is that Obama will raise taxes. When someone says they are going to cut taxes and then someone says they are going to raise taxes not cut them its sort of on them to show how thats going to work. You can't just give broad talking points and expect people to believe you. IF what you say is true, then the republicans deserve to lose even more because of it.

Under the Obama plan, the one I mentioned above, (you know, people making under 250,000, will get their income tax cut) by definition wouldn't that mean the government will be taking less out? Obama has been very clear since the economic collapse that he will most likely have to cancel, change, or postpone many of his spending plans.

Look, heres the deal, I'm very biased, I don't call myself liberal, I consider myself moderate and very opinionated. Bottom line, I think shes a gigantic moron. We arleady delt with someone who was "down to earth" and "likable" for the last eight years. Remember the whole "Id like to have a beer with Bush" thing. How about we elect someone who doesn't make up things the VP can do because its part of the legislative branch, how about someone who admits that global warming is man made and not caused by sun spots or minor temperature variants. People, some who are followes of Pallin, believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and that at one point Dinosaurs and people co-habitated the planet together. These people are not religous or spiritual, they are MORONS. Candidates can't afford to say as much but I can. There are a whole lot of conservatives (and liberals) that are morons and the fact that people entertain their notions is rediuclous.

She can't even pronounce nuclear for christ's sake!

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

APLETHORAOFPINATAS wrote:

50%, thats just silly hyperbole.

Perhaps a little, but that's what it was approaching under Carter.

APLETHORAOFPINATAS wrote:

and further more if he is being so misleading why aren't the republicans running adds explaining how hes being misleading? Why isn't this a major talking point?

It's just becoming one now, as the economy has become center stage and it looks even more so like Obama won't be able to fund the programs he's proposed.

APLETHORAOFPINATAS wrote:

Under the Obama plan, the one I mentioned above, (you know, people making under 250,000, will get their income tax cut) by definition wouldn't that mean the government will be taking less out?

Saying something and it being true are two very different things. He says he won't tax anyone under $250K, but with tax revenue decreasing, which would exacerbate under the higher taxes he proposes, he will have to tax the middle class as well in order to fund them all.

APLETHORAOFPINATAS wrote:

Bottom line, I think shes a gigantic moron.

Then it might be impossible to have a civil conversation with you, if you feel compelled to resort to that kind of name-calling.

APLETHORAOFPINATAS wrote:

How about we elect someone who doesn't make up things the VP can do because its part of the legislative branch

Actually, Biden misstated the role of the VP according to the constitution last night, not Palin:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/03/biden-gets-veep-role-wrong/

APLETHORAOFPINATAS wrote:

how about someone who admits that global warming is man made and not caused by sun spots or minor temperature variants.

How about because there is no consensus regarding man's involvement in any warming of the globe? The weather is entirely cyclical. Hell, we had an ice age only 10,000 years ago. Meanwhile, even the polar ice caps on other planets are shrinking, such as on Mars and Pluto. Doesn't that imply that it's mainly solar cycles affecting things? You should look less at Gore's propaganda and read some of Vaclav Klaus' stuff, who is the current President of the Czech Republic. The guy is a genius:

http://www.amazon.com/Planet-Green-Shackles-Vaclav-Klaus/dp/B001A3W3BK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223058640&sr=1-1

APLETHORAOFPINATAS wrote:

People, some who are followes of Pallin, believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and that at one point Dinosaurs and people co-habitated the planet together. These people are not religous or spiritual, they are MORONS.

Way to generalize there. There is no evidence Palin herself believes that, you are just taking at face value the claims of several far left pundits who are extrapolating her positions from the strength of her faith.

Meanwhile, most American Christians don't believe those claims anyway. I'm a Palin supporter, and I believe the earth is billions of years old and that dinosaurs died out before we starting roaming the earth. Such as statement by a conservative shouldn't even have to be made. There is no reason why a Christian cannot believe in evolution and God at the same time.

Joined: Jun 10 2008 Posts: 172

I agree as a christian as well.
However you are delluding yourself if you think I was looking for a civil conversation to begin with.

I find that article from the WT very interesting but as far as the book is concerned just because its published doesn't mean its true. Garbage gets published all the time. I could publish, and someone has, a book filled with all the urban legends about Obama and it would have legitimacy merely by the fact that its published.

And you'll note I never said that Pallin believes in the Young Earth Theory, I said those around her do. And it is absolutley a generazation... good job if thats what your looking for.

Ultimatly my true true uber true point is this.. we are fucked to matter what happens. The individual has gained so much importance in society that even the mad and the blathering demand consideration. I don't need to have tolerance or accept your ideas, quite frankly this conversation is an outlet to blow some steam, so by all means continue to argue against someone who doesn't need logic to beat the snot out of you.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

I guess I was right that it's impossible to have a civil conversation with you.

Very well. So be it.

Posted: Oct 03 2008 03:08 pm

Is Cattivo going to start electrocuting people with his finger force? I hope so.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

My power does emanate from my Lightning hat:

Posted: Oct 03 2008 03:21 pm

(If we take his hat, he'll have no powers and we can bring him down!)

--

I don't care much myself for Palin, but I can see Cattivo's points. My main issues is that I just can't trust McCain. I can't give you any specific issues on why short of my own personal speculation, so I'll save you that, so one can see I don't have much of an argument. Then again, I'm not trying to convince others to vote for whoever, I'm just saying I don't trust McCain.

I used to be hardcore into politics, but I've just been fed up with all the possible dynamics within the last few years. There are so many possibilities for what we're told happens, what really happens, possible metaorganizations and conspiracies... I just don't want to get caught up in it all, I'd have to go through so much data to make an actual informed decision, and I barely get time now for things for which I have more passion, like writing music or belittling children.

Therefore, I'm just going to go with my gut instincts on what I happen to hear and feel. Again, it's shallow, but I waited 18 years to vote, and to hell if I'm going to stop that now. I don't want to see the election where I'm SO disheartened by all possible candidates, that I do not vote.

Posted: Oct 03 2008 04:48 pm

Truth is, you can't trust any politician. Obama keeps promising he'll nationalize healthcare, well that's not happening. Congress writes the laws, not the president, and Congress will never pass a national healthcare bill. Clinton promised his fans national healthcare in 1992, and in eight years, he never managed to get Congress to approve it.

Even if it does pass, it won't be what Obama is promising. Yes, it may cost you less money to visit the doctor than it does now, but you'll have less control over what doctor you see and when you get to a see a doctor than you do now under the worst available health plan. The magical national healthcare that the Democrats like to promise us is a complete sham, a lie they use to prey upon the weak and stupid, not entirely unlike how Bush used terrorism in the 2004 election cycle.

Joined: Aug 13 2008 Location: Watertown, NY Posts: 131

Quote:

Actually, Biden misstated the role of the VP according to the constitution last night, not Palin:

Nobody said she did, he was talking about Cheney's playing with the parameters of the VP role.

Quote:

Saying something and it being true are two very different things. He says he won't tax anyone under $250K, but with tax revenue decreasing, which would exacerbate under the higher taxes he proposes, he will have to tax the middle class as well in order to fund them all.

You're assuming he won't put balancing the budget above his social programs. While you're perfectly justified in believing that, you're stating it as though it's fact. It's not, yet.

Quote:

How about because there is no consensus regarding man's involvement in any warming of the globe? The weather is entirely cyclical. Hell, we had an ice age only 10,000 years ago. Meanwhile, even the polar ice caps on other planets are shrinking, such as on Mars and Pluto. Doesn't that imply that it's mainly solar cycles affecting things?

Then can you think of a better reason to mitigate the man-made element?

Quote:

You should look less at Gore's propaganda and read some of Vaclav Klaus' stuff, who is the current President of the Czech Republic. The guy is a genius:

Haven't read the book, but I notice it's presented by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. These guys are a pretty solid source of global warming misinformation, most of which has been thoroughly debunked, and have in the past recieved a lot of money from the energy industry. This doesn't prove a bias by any means, but I hardly think it's fair to call Gore's work propaganda while citing a source of such questionable objectivity.

Quote:

There is no evidence Palin herself believes that, you are just taking at face value the claims of several far left pundits who are extrapolating her positions from the strength of her faith.

She has been quoted as saying that kids in school should be allowed to debate both sides of the issue evolution/creationism issue in PUBLIC schools, though she did say it did not need to be part of the curriculum. As long as conservatives continue to endorse junk science and the idea that you can debate AGAINST physical reality to satisfy a contingent of far-right yahoos, they will remain a joke in academia and the media. If thy're not amenable to change on these issues, they deserve to ridiculed.

So far Cattivo, your monstrous reputation seems unwarranted. I'm sure I'm wrong though.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

I wasn't impressed by either of them really.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Oct 03 2008 06:35 pm

Quote:

Under the Obama plan, the one I mentioned above, (you know, people making under 250,000, will get their income tax cut) by definition wouldn't that mean the government will be taking less out?

No, it won't. It's paying for the tax cut by slamming the people above that number. And by raising business taxes (you can call it "closing loopholes" all you like, but it's the same thing).

I've never been a fan of the "Robin Hood" style of taxing, robbing the rich and giving to the poor. It strikes me as unfair when you kick the 5% to benefit the other 95%, and you can get away with it because the 95% can always outvote you.

Posted: Oct 03 2008 06:35 pm

To be honest, I still don't have an opinion on Obama. I mean, sure, I know I won't vote for McCain, I have my reasons and all that jazz. But is Obama really a good alternative?

I'm going to do my research. In the meantime, I just hope that you Americans don't find yourself in a Transmetropolitan situation. You know, voting off a shitty president for a real maniac. Not one country had luck when it came to a leader.

Posted: Oct 03 2008 06:36 pm

[quote="mjl1783"]

Quote:

As long as conservatives continue to endorse junk science and the idea that you can debate AGAINST physical reality to satisfy a contingent of far-right yahoos, they will remain a joke in academia and the media. If thy're not amenable to change on these issues, they deserve to ridiculed.

Should creationism be a part of curriculums? Absolutely not. Should students be allowed to debate it? Absolutely. Evolution is not "physical reality", it is a theory. It is a very compelling theory, and I personally endorse it, but IIRC, there are still some serious gaps in the fossil history.

I'm also sick of the idea that evolution excludes a Creator. It doesn't. Of course, it's almost always the Christian fundies who insist it does. Perhaps if their theory of creationism wasn't so damn narrow...

As for global warming, I think Bill O'Reilly said it best. It was something like: "Look, I don't know if all that stuff we're putting in the air is causing global warming or not, but it certainly can't be good."

Joined: Oct 12 2007 Posts: 821

I think Cattivo hit it right on the nose when he said that the republicans are going to agree with Palin, while the democrats with agree with Biden. I am a liberal fellow, so of course I will be siding with Biden. That being said, I feel like Palin can only regurgitate information told to her by McCain or the advisers, while I feel Biden has more independent thought. For example, Cattivo posted a link somewhere about a “gaffe” Biden made, where he said he didn’t like an ad Obama was running. I didn’t find this a gaffe, as I thought it was a very honest thing to say and is a legitimate opinion. Meanwhile, Palin is on national television saying she reads newspapers but is unable to name any. It just feels like something she was told to say to make her look good, but couldn’t follow up on it.

I have my own thoughts and McCain and Obama, but that is for another thread and another time.

Posted: Oct 03 2008 06:49 pm

Nekkoru wrote:

To be honest, I still don't have an opinion on Obama. I mean, sure, I know I won't vote for McCain, I have my reasons and all that jazz. But is Obama really a good alternative?

I'm going to do my research. In the meantime, I just hope that you Americans don't find yourself in a Transmetropolitan situation. You know, voting off a shitty president for a real maniac. Not one country had luck when it came to a leader.

Really. I've seen better choices in Russian markets before the end of the Cold War...

Posted: Oct 03 2008 06:52 pm

Well, whatever you will pick, you'll find yourself with a headache, lying in a puddle of your own vomit.

Posted: Oct 03 2008 07:04 pm

Nekkoru wrote:

Well, whatever you will pick, you'll find yourself with a headache, lying in a puddle of your own vomit.

That's what I have planned for tonight. Rolling Eyes

Posted: Oct 03 2008 07:23 pm

I'm not saying that's a bad thing.