What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Post VP debate thread

  • #41
Rattler, that video is exteremly biased and it ignored the fact that repubs controlled the government form 1994-2006. So if they really wanted to do something about it they could have. It also doesnt take into account the falling value of the dollar which was directly related to pouring of billions of dollars into Iraq which McCain supported, and inflation hit the economy hard as our economy is very dependent on imports. It implied that the price of energy was some how effected by subprime morgrages which I dont really understand. Plus it is based solely on correlations not facts as it claims. No direct relationships were shown other than politicians took money from Fannie and Freddi for their campaigns, which we all know is nothing new. Now I am not going to say either side is to blame, THE ARE ALL TO BLAME, both parties did things that contributed to this problem.
 
  • #42
The Republicans are blaming the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for the nationwide (and now worldwide) financial crisis and the impending economic disaster. It wasn't long ago when Republicans were ridicuing community organizers. Republicans changed their campaign strategy when they realized that Obama would be put in a worse light if voters thought of him as a terrorist who was trying to destroy America rather than an impotent do-gooder. The truth is that neither is correct. And the truth won't deter the Republicans in the least, as they will begin to tell more lies about Obama since they have failed to successfully challenge him on the issues. Voters see that the financial/economic crisis is the result of deregulation, which Republicans worshipped -- at least up to a couple of weeks ago. McCain's positions on economic issues are virtually the same as Bush's policies. Lacking a viable economic program, Republicans are desperate.
 
  • #43
once again i will say the videos i posted pointed out individuals and not a party........and for the record i got no problems voting democrat.....i like my democrat governor......my issue is with individuals and not a party.........

and it ignored the fact that repubs controlled the government form 1994-2006.

like to know what the last vote that was demos versus repubs.......i generally see a mix of both on both sides......
 
  • #44
This was from an e-mail I received, brings some interesting points.

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) the unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) the DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars,taking cruises, vacations overseas, living large!...

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) As I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~
$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!

YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! ....

REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS. AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS? Read 1-6 above…again!

NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!

JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?
 
  • #45
I've been out of town and I remember reading on my phone something about Obama/Biden always talking about George Bush and I can't remember if it was in this thread or not, but I suppose it's appropriate to discuss it here anyway. What everyone is talking about, when Biden went off about George Bush and change is completely justifiable. The response came directly after a question about George Bush's presidency, so I think it is certainly within the realm of plausibility that Biden talk about Bush. Of course, they talk a lot about Bush in their stump speeches and other parts of the debate, but Biden made a good point that we haven't heard how he is different. I don't even really know the nuts and bolts of his economic plans and health care plans. I know there are some plans out there in some form or another, but his campaign has done a terrible job of getting whatever that message is out there. Maybe they are too busy playing in the moment and trying to divert attention...

It was pointed out that the moderation system was rather lax for this debate.

That's one thing I'm always disappointed with. The moderators never hold the candidates accountable for actually answering the questions.

Maybe it was just me, but Palin seemed overly rehearsed.

I agree.

Personally, I don't like Palin's homeyness; it adds frosting to her inexperienced-based cake.

I also agree. Every single time I hear her say "hockey moms" or "joe six pack" I want to cringe and think are there people that actually relate to her better because of this? I don't want a hockey mom or a joe six pack in office. I don't want me in office. I want someone smarter than me.

yah know if Obama would just say......"I believe everyone in the US needs to have health insurance and it may require everyone pitching in a bit to do it for the betterment" i would have alot more faith in him on that, i wouldnt agree with him but i would have less issues with him on it.

I agree one hundred percent here, Rattler. It baffles me that a politician wouldn't just come out and say "it's time to dig in, we all need to make some sacrifices." I do think Palin did start down this road when she started talking about not spending outside our means, but she didn't hit the nail on the head.

xvart.
 
  • #46
So Joe, who was President of The United States in 1929? He can't even get that right... This guy is DANGEROUS... He want's to be Vice President, and he doesn't even know what a Vice President does... That is rich...
Don

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433314,00.html

Did Biden Get It Wrong? You Betcha
Monday, October 06, 2008

By John R. Lott, Jr.

When you interview for a job, here is a hint: make sure you know what the job is. Joe Biden failed that test last Thursday. He couldn’t even get right what a vice president does, but the media didn’t notice.

The media is all over itself about how smart and experienced Biden is. Political analyst Charlie Cook is quoted in the Washington Post on Saturday as saying “Biden is clearly so much more knowledgeable, by a factor of about a million.” Saturday Night Live does a skit about Biden being smart, if slimy. Meanwhile, Governor Sarah Palin is treated as being nothing more than a simpleton.

Yet, take Biden’s statement from the debate on the role of the vice president:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive, and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

One should be careful when throwing around terms such as “most dangerous” and “bizarre.” But Biden is confusing which part of the Constitution covers the Executive Branch (it is Article II, not Article I). More importantly, the notion that the vice president can preside over the Senate only when there is a tie vote is simply wrong. Nor is it true that the only legislative involvement the vice president has is to break tie votes. The vice president is the president of the Senate, where he interprets the rules and can only be overridden by a vote of 60 senators.

Early vice presidents spent a lot of time in the Senate. Thomas Jefferson even spent his time writing “A Manual of Parliamentary Practice: for the Use of the Senate of the United States.” Modern vice presidents may show up only when they think tie votes will occur, but that is their choice.

This isn’t rocket science. The Constitution on this point is very straightforward: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

Instead, it was Palin who got it right. Besides correctly stating that the vice president holds positions in both the executive and legislative branches, she also noted that:

Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chooses to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

But just as the vice president’s job includes more than simply being ready to assume the presidency if the president dies, the Constitution merely states what the vice president’s minimum responsibilities are.

Compare the uproar over Palin’s answer to Charlie Gibson about the “Bush Doctrine,” a doctrine that Gibson clearly didn’t understand and for which there apparently exist at least four different versions. Where is the outrage over Biden not understanding what vice presidents do? For Biden, his inability to correctly say what vice presidents do was surely his “gotcha” moment.

Yet, this mistake during the debate was hardly unique. Biden got a lot of things wrong in the debate that are going unnoticed by the fact-check media. Take just a few:

-- Will McCain's health care proposals raise taxes? Biden says that McCain’s proposal will cost people money. The Tax Foundation finds that could easily be "roughly deficit-neutral over ten years."

-- Under an Obama Administration the middle class will "pay no more than they did under Ronald Reagan"? No, the tax rates will be similar to the higher rates under Clinton.

-- Did "we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country"? No, one year’s worth of spending in Iraq equaled five in Afghanistan.

-- France and the U.S. "kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon"? No, and it wouldn't have made much more sense if he had said "Syria" instead.

-- Is it really “simply not true” that Obama said that he would meet with the leader of countries such as Iran without preconditions? No, Obama said “I would.”

-- Did Obama warn against letting Hamas participate in Palestinian legislative elections in 2005? No.

-- Do “Iraqis have an $80 billion surplus”? No. If oil prices had remained high, it might have reached $50 billion by the end of this year.

-- Finally, an amusing point as evidence that Biden is just one of the people he pointed to, inviting anyone to have a beer with him at "Katie's Restaurant" in Wilmington, Del. Unfortunately, people will have a hard time taking him up on his offer, since the restaurant hasn't had that name for probably 15 years.

Unfortunately, voters who are trying to get an accurate count on whether the candidates are telling the truth can’t rely on the media. FactCheck.org mentions only one of these points, the size of the Iraqi surplus. The Washington Post mentioned Biden’s misstatement on Hamas and Katie’s restaurant. AOL’s coverage of the errors in the vice presidential debate was by far the worst, though that might not be too surprising given that Tommy Christopher, who wrote their news analysis, also blogs on the Obama Web site. None of these checkers mentioned Biden's statements about the role of the vice president.

Compare this to the attacks on Sarah Palin:

-- FactCheck.org criticizes Palin for claiming that McCain’s health care tax credits will be "budget neutral" – they argue that the tax credit will be larger than the new taxes that the program will impose. Fine, but if the people at FactCheck.org believe that is true and that the Tax Foundation is wrong, Biden’s claim about increased taxes is even more inaccurate. But FactCheck.org doesn't even mention Biden’s statement from the debate.

-- From AOL's news analysis piece. “Palin: Said that it is untrue that the U.S. is killing civilians in Afghanistan. According to an analysis by the AP, however, the U.S. is killing more civilians than insurgents are.”

What Palin actually said was: “Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians.” Whether one believes the AP estimate or not, the question is whether she was accurately characterizing Obama’s statement of the job that our forces were doing. And Obama said, “We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians” (emphasis added).

-- FactCheck.org’s first critique claims that Palin was wrong to claim that troop levels in Iraq are down to their pre-surge levels. They are correct that after the recently announced drawdown, 6,000 more troops will be in Iraq than immediately before the surge. But why not mention that 84 percent of the 38,000 troops in the surge are home or are in the process of coming home?

The media seems to have been covering for Biden for some time. While news stories still talk about Dan Quayle’s spelling mistake 18 years later, there has been almost no news coverage of Biden’s numerous wacky statements. What if Quayle had said something similar to Biden’s recent statement that, "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'" A neat trick given that Herbert Hoover was president in 1929 and television was not yet invented.

It might not fit the simple template for a 36-year veteran of the Senate to not understand what vice presidents do (after all, eight vice presidents have served with him), but Biden knew less about this than the political outsider, Sarah Palin. Given that they are running to be vice president, why didn’t that story dominate the news coverage after the debate?


John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland.

_________________________________________________________________

And, From today's Wall Street Journal:

Biden's Fantasy World
Sarah Palin may not know as much about the world, but at least most of what she knows is true.

In the popular media wisdom, Sarah Palin is the neophyte who knows nothing about foreign policy while Joe Biden is the savvy diplomatic pro. Then what are we to make of Mr. Biden's fantastic debate voyage last week when he made factual claims that would have got Mrs. Palin mocked from New York to Los Angeles?

Start with Lebanon, where Mr. Biden asserted that "When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.' Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel."

The U.S. never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, and no one else has either. Perhaps Mr. Biden meant to say Syria, except that the U.S. also didn't do that. The Lebanese ousted Syria's military in 2005. As for NATO, Messrs. Biden and Obama may have proposed sending alliance troops in, but if they did that was also a fantasy. The U.S. has had all it can handle trying to convince NATO countries to deploy to Afghanistan.

Speaking of which, Mr. Biden also averred that "Our commanding general in Afghanistan said the surge principle in Iraq will not work in Afghanistan." In trying to correct him, Mrs. Palin mispronounced the general's name -- saying "General McClellan" instead of General David McKiernan. But Mr. Biden's claim was the bigger error, because General McKiernan said that while "Afghanistan is not Iraq," he also said a "sustained commitment" to counterinsurgency would be required. That is consistent with Mr. McCain's point that the "surge principles" of Iraq could work in Afghanistan.

Then there's the Senator's astonishing claim that Mr. Obama "did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad" without preconditions. Yet Mr. Biden himself criticized Mr. Obama on this point in 2007 at the National Press Club: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected President? Absolutely, positively no."

Or how about his rewriting of Bosnia history to assert that John McCain didn't support President Clinton in the 1990s. "My recommendations on Bosnia, I admit I was the first one to recommend it. They saved tens of thousands of lives. And initially John McCain opposed it along with a lot of other people. But the end result was it worked."

Mr. Biden's immodesty aside, Mr. McCain supported Mr. Clinton on Bosnia, as did Bob Dole even as he was running against him for President in 1996 -- in contrast to the way Mr. Biden and Democratic leaders have tried to undermine President Bush on Iraq.

Closer to home, the Delaware blarney stone also invited Americans to join him at "Katie's restaurant" in Wilmington to witness middle-class struggles. Just one problem: Katie's closed in the 1980s. The mistake is more than a memory lapse because it exposes how phony is Mr. Biden's attempt to pose for this campaign as Lunchbucket Joe.

We think the word "lie" is overused in politics today, having become a favorite of the blogosphere and at the New York Times. So we won't say Mr. Biden was deliberately making events up when he made these and other false statements. Perhaps he merely misspoke. In any case, Mrs. Palin may not know as much about the world as Mr. Biden does, but at least most of what she knows is true.
 
  • #47
I for one do not care who was is to blame for the economic problems. Democrats, republicans, whatnot. Its always the other party. Its funny, many people are very partisan but we complain when the partisan people we elect act partisan in congress…

The thing people should focus on is how we fix the current situation. A large part of this current issue seems to be related to the housing situation, and you can not blame that on any one party. And this issue has been building for some time so blaming whoever runs the show now may be easy but… not exactly accurate.


But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:

1) Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon & climbing!;
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase);
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping;
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) As I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~
$2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
Yes, all of these things never existed or were not a problem till democrtas became in charge... the year before oil was 25 cents a gallon and there was no such thing as a housing bubble. Blaming Bush totally is not exactly fair either.
 
  • #48
I loved it. Palin got slammed. She didn’t embarrass herself for one reason; she’s a maverick who has a lot of exp. being an Alaskan mayor, governor, and oil executive. That’s all the idiot said! She dodged the real question oh, I dunno, 50 times?

Hopefully her true self will come across to the public. She seems to be a nice enough normal woman, but I do not want my friends mom running the country. She is an "average American". I don’t want an average person to be president (one heartbeat away!)! I want someone better & smarter than me to be president, which is obviously not her!

I was very happy how well biden did, and the 2 or 3 slam dunks he got in. Parties aside, you had to be a little touched when he choked up about his sons.

Anyway, good job Senator Biden! :D

I am sorry you must not be very smart then. I am smart enough to be president. There are plenty of people smart enough to be president. That is the problem with the presidents we have had in the past. They feel they are smarter and the only one who can do the job. You need an average person in office, or else your going to continue to have the disconnect with the average person. Biden got slammed a few times in the debate to, but your not even talking about that. Biden looked like a bumbling idiot to me several times.

Personally I want someone who has a good connect to the "Average person" how else are the things that matter to YOU and ME, the "Average" people, going to get done? Obama is catering to the welfare crowd just like every dem has done. They say things like "I don;t care if you don't work. I still want to give you $1000 for your vote" That is what I hear with everything Obama says. I want to take from the rich and give it to the deadbeats who refuse to work hard to get ahead.
 
  • #50
i really dont care for O'Reilly......he could of tore Frank a new rear without screaming and yelling and come off much better in the process.....in the end though i think O'Reilly is right i think how he did it makes him look like an idiot.....course i guess screaming and yelling is what ppl want to watch
 
  • #51
The McCain campaign is sequestering Sarah Palin from the media, afraid that she will make comments similar to those she made in the Couric interview, when some of her answers were just plain goofy. She is now giving only prepared speeches and not answering any questions posed by reporters. All that the American public knows from looking at and listening to Sarah Palin is that she can give a pretty good prepared speech, that she often didn’t know what she was talking about during the Couric interview, and that she pulled it together for the debate just enough so she could string together words and phrases, bringing a big sigh of relief to her supporters. Still, she showed that she is not familiar with a broad range of issues. Large portions of many of her answers were so generic that they could have been used to respond to any other question.

Palintology (pay’ lin taw’ low jee) n. The study of the transcript of the 2008 U.S. vice-presidential debate and other artifacts related to Sarah Palin to determine what she meant, if anything.
 
  • #52
The McCain campaign is sequestering Sarah Palin from the media, afraid that she will make comments similar to those she made in the Couric interview, when some of her answers were just plain goofy. She is now giving only prepared speeches and not answering any questions posed by reporters. All that the American public knows from looking at and listening to Sarah Palin is that she can give a pretty good prepared speech, that she often didn’t know what she was talking about during the Couric interview, and that she pulled it together for the debate just enough so she could string together words and phrases, bringing a big sigh of relief to her supporters. Still, she showed that she is not familiar with a broad range of issues. Large portions of many of her answers were so generic that they could have been used to respond to any other question.

Palintology (pay’ lin taw’ low jee) n. The study of the transcript of the 2008 U.S. vice-presidential debate and other artifacts related to Sarah Palin to determine what she meant, if anything.

What a surprise, another attempt to attack Sarah Palin! The days of Fey and Couric are over. Both of them will have to find new careers because Palin proved in the debate with Biden that she isn't the caricature that the liberal media has been trying to paint her. In case you didn't know that's a gun toting, moronic, Christian zealot.

How is Obama going to fix the economic crisis here when he's the #2 receiver of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423701,00.html)

Lets not forget Rev. Wright, Obama's great mentor and pastor of 20 years, who married Obama and Michelle and baptized his own children too. He threw him under the bus for political gain. Actually lets be honest here, the only reason Obama attended Wright's church was for political gain and gaining Christian evangelical support. This man is an empty suit, full of words, epiphanies and nothing else. His paper trail is about as long as an empty toilet paper roll. He's the most liberal person in the Democratic Party, with the least experience, running a campaign based on change yet picking a VP that's been in Congress longer than McCain.

Obama says he's not ready to be President:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BnLozS-TnM

Biden says Obama's not ready to be President:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpjAs4vtc1w

The choice is simple.
 
  • #53
Wow, Outsiders, you got almost all of that wrong. First, the Couric interview speaks for itself. And the polls show Biden easily won the debate where Palin could only give rehersed, generic answers unrelated to the questions. The polls were especially skewed among "undecideds."

And in fact the McCain camp has been very careful to shield Palin from the media (and they have you under the bizarre impression it's improper even to criticize her). She should be out there taking questions every day. Doing in-depth interviews in the same way that Obama, McCain, and Biden do. But no, they specifically won't let her. Why do you think that is? The answer is the Couric interview, where Palin couldn't answer very mild, easy questions.

As far as Tina Fey - haha - that's just a bad break. I actually feel sorry for Palin for this - what are the chances they have someone who can do a dead-on masterful impersonation? Of course, she is easy to parody, you know, what with being a gun-toting, moronic, Christian zealot (and you do NOT want to compare pastors with Obama and Palin, believe me.)

Capslock
 
  • #54
All that the American public knows from looking at and listening to Sarah Palin is that she can give a pretty good prepared speech, that she often didn’t know what she was talking about during the Couric interview,

the first one sounds like Obama and the second part sounds like Biden.......
 
  • #55
Wow, Outsiders, you got almost all of that wrong. First, the Couric interview speaks for itself.

So shall we base everything of Obama and Biden based on an interview with Bill O'reilly? Couric never meant to interview Palin, she was out to rip her a new one.

And the polls show Biden easily won the debate where Palin could only give rehersed, generic answers unrelated to the questions. The polls were especially skewed among "undecideds."

I disagree, I think it was a tie, until you did a fact check. Then it was a win for Palin. First off polls mean nothing. Did you answer to the poll? Did I? Did anybody on here? No. Polls are simple. Whoever is in favor of X says X wins. The people who are "undecided" are leaners, meaning they aren't sitting in the dead middle, they have a good idea already who they are voting for. So in other words it means nothing.

And in fact the McCain camp has been very careful to shield Palin from the media (and they have you under the bizarre impression it's improper even to criticize her). She should be out there taking questions every day. Doing in-depth interviews in the same way that Obama, McCain, and Biden do. But no, they specifically won't let her. Why do you think that is? The answer is the Couric interview, where Palin couldn't answer very mild, easy questions.

Are you that oblivious to the media bias of this Presidential campaign? They've been shoving Obama since the primaries. They overlook everything he and Biden says or does. The only thing the media has paid attention to was Rev. Wright, and that was softly passed through the "machine". So explain to me why it would be smart for Palin to be handed over to a bunch of liberal networks who do nothing but blow the Obama horn 24/7? They don't want to interview her, and you could careless to hear Palin's positions. You just want Palin to be reemed by liberals like Couric for popcorn value.

As far as Tina Fey - haha - that's just a bad break. I actually feel sorry for Palin for this - what are the chances they have someone who can do a dead-on masterful impersonation? Of course, she is easy to parody, you know, what with being a gun-toting, moronic, Christian zealot (and you do NOT want to compare pastors with Obama and Palin, believe me.)

Capslock

I'd gladly compare Obama's pastor to Palins any day. Rev. Wright would mop the floor and polish it.
 
  • #56
Palin is the one who swung my vote. I actually liked McCain better than Obama, and Biden is... Biden.

But Palin is a frikin' joke. Palin does not seem to be "intellectuality curios," just like Bush. She has deep ties to the oil industry also, is for teaching creationism. She is distinctly average... and I believe most people do not have what it takes to be president, I believe it takes much more than just smarts (and more smarts than most people at that). I want someone who knows what they are doing... or has a clue. Obama doesn't have it, and there is no way in heck Palin has it. With McCain's age and all, Palin in the white house is a distinct possibility. I think Obama is better suited to diplomacy with other nations by far, even though what he has does not amount to much.

How do I know? Because I once lived in Maine! Its right next to Canada, therefore I know of foreign policy! [/sarcasm]
 
  • #57
What do you think Couric asked that was so biased or out to ream her? Those questions were softballs. I could have answered them. Easily. That was a puff piece, not a trap. Out to rip her a new one? Did you even watch it? It was gentle!

Every major poll showed a Biden victory in the debate, and national polls trended towards Obama after the Biden debate. I'm a news junky, Outsiders - I look at tons of sources, right and left leaning.

The mainstream corporate media has no bias except for a corporatist bias and sensationalist bias. The fact is that the McCain camp is shielding Palin from the media because she says embarrassing things. Nobody else is hidden from the media like that. Just Palin. And it's not right. If she's going to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, she has to be able to handle Kaite Couric's softball questions.

Oh, by the way, as far as Pastors go, Palin palls around with crazy witch doctors, Outsiders. Witch. Doctors. Crazy-*** witch doctors. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/17/202137/657

Capslock
 
  • #58
yep Palin has ties to the oil industry..........she went in, took money from them and gave it to the citizens of Alaska......her husband was working for the oil companies UNTIL she decided to take them on at which point he resigned from his job and started fishing for a living........Finch yah should really look this stuff up.....Palin aint a joke, she has what it takes.......unlike Obama............if theat guy does get elected its going to be funny as hell watching all your guys' jaws hit the floor when a couple years down the line he turns out to be the same ol' career politician as the likes of Biden, Kerry or Gore and doesnt change a damn thing but raise your taxes........
 
  • #59
Every major poll showed a Biden victory in the debate, and national polls trended towards Obama after the Biden debate. I'm a news junky, Outsiders - I look at tons of sources, right and left leaning.

the same pollsters that had Gore by a 10 point lead up through election day?
 
  • #60
Don't get me started on the 2000 Selection, Rattler. It just gets me angry.

But the answer is that there are tons of polls out there. They all show Biden the winner. All of them. He won - that's just the way it is. If you could shake your partisan blinders off, you'd see that Palin is virtually unable to answer questions. She even said she had no intent to answer the questions, and when she spoke, it was in prepared generalities. She's very simply a fraud - a cynical ploy by McCain to gain female votes. I guarantee McCain does not think she's the most qualified for the job.

Palin is a young-earth creationist! She seriously believes Jesus is returning during her life time, which makes her position in regards to the nuclear codes that much more scary.

She just got her first passport last year! In school, she bounced around to multiple universities before getting a journalism degree from Idaho, where people don't seem to even remember her.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/08/university_of_idaho_professors.html

Obama graduated near the top of his class from Harvard Law School, magna cum laude, and was editor of the Harvard Law Review. There really is no comparison on capacity here.

Capslock
 
Back
Top