Palin vs. Biden. How are you guys calling it?
Posted on: October 2, 2008 - 10:10pm
Offline
Palin vs. Biden. How are you guys calling it?
IAGAY mentioned in another thread that he was listening in on the debate and I wrote in reply.
So as not to derail the thread, I'm starting a new one here.
They're about halfway through now, and I wrote to IAGAY:
I wrote:
I'm listening in too IAGAY, and she's throwing out platitudes and emotional arguments left and right, BUT... She's dying it clearly and consisely. So... I'm sorry to say that as a purely political observer, I have to say she's doing good... Of course any well educated person will have noticed by now how's she's not answered a single question directly yet, and Biden has been very specific in his answers, but unfortunately, we both know that it is not the well educated observers we need to worry about...She's calm and consise, and, as all the pundits have said, all she needs to do is not have a repeat of the Katie Curic interview to "win" this one, and so far, I think she's managed that...
So, anyone else listening in?
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
- Login to post comments
Whoops... That should be: "...She's doing it clearly and consisely..."
Almost done! Shit!!! Biden choked up! I LOVED his rant about men being capable of being parents, and undermining the femi-nazi idea that only women can love their kids.
But then he choked up for a second...
Shit... Isn't this going to be milked as a cheap political stunt to appear sensitive, to counteract the image of the "hard men" vs. the "Soft woman"?
Even I have a hard time believing that choke was sincere, and I totally got where he's coming from with the "men can love their kids too"
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
I'm an average citizen and so far im usually laughing about her because i notice how she is avoiding answering the questions directly. but i wont say more till it is over...
They're both pretty much sticking to the talking points of their respective parties.
But Palin effectively denied (or at least downplayed considerably) the role of human activities in causing global warming. So that pretty much obliterates any possibility that I'd vote Republican (not that there was much of a chnce to begin with).
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
Palin rambled on and on on almost every question and said absolutely nothing.
Smarter B clearly won, clever scary proud coached P did fair, yicks, what a witch. When she said "being a mom" I really flipped, and shit, she is NO friend of women, nor humanity .... Her rant on Israel and Iran was way dumb. Overall the debate was much too tame. Basically, all P said was distortion jibberish lying shit. Stop her and war pig McCain.
Atheism Books.
well i think they both came off good pretty well with people that were all ready for them, but i don't think they changed a whole lot of minds on either sides... i didn't like how she kept ranting at biden every time he mentioned going back when his campaign is about moving forward. the reason i have a problem is that you can't move forward without knowing where you've been, i mean you can but you might just do a large u-turn and go back to where you started and that wouldn't be good!
I think this was a good debate though because they kept everything quite civil...
All Biden needed to do was to avoid appearing to be a lecturer and a scold and he succeeded there; no one who didn't hate him going into this thing is going to hate him tomorrow. He did a nice job of defining the role of the Veep within the limits of the Constitution as well, which was a bonus.
Palin's definitely picked up some polish since the Couric interview and she'll no doubt silence her critics on the Republican side with this performance (I forgot the woman's name, but there's at least one asking her to bow out for the sake of the party). From my biased point of view, she still lost by a wide margin.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
I like how it wa so fucking softball that I wanted to punch-out my TV screen. I mean, what the fuck? Where the Hell was the question about why Palin couldn't give an answer about a simple question regarding Hamas? Where was the question about how old Palin thinks the world is? Where was the question about where the Gaza Strip is located (Better yet: trick her up in case she's already been coached on that. Ask her where she thinks Kandahar is located)?
Where was Biden's question about how long he think's TV's been around? Or how long FDR was office?
Your guys's VP 'debates' fucking suck.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
uhhhh...those questions got put on hold for less important questions *I guess?*
LOL
naw it didn't suck, it wasn't great, it wasn't nothing like awe inspiring or anything like that, but they are awe inspiring people they are your more average joes, their running mates are supposed to be the awe inspiring ones.
but i would've liked some of those questions as well but i don't get what i want >_>!
didn't catch your debate though what channel was it on? was it even on american television? idk but i don't think that it was...
Ours was only on CBC, I think.
Yeah Kevin , wish you could be a questionnaire of these debates. LOL, and to all you RRS buddhas. Our public leaders need your help ....
I remain an optimist, even tho all earth life, as we are now, is destined to end, as the sun burns out. Think about the kids kids .... to be the wiser.
Atheism Books.
Realize that this fraud of a government, this socio-fascist government is debasing our currency by passing bailout legislation that bails nobody out but the BANKS that caused this messed.
If you know me at all, I'm a devout Christian, but I'm also realistic how this government has done nothing but ruin our economy and our country for the past 3 decades.
We left the gold standard in the early 70's, making our currency a fiat, backed by the paper it's written on. The dollar won't be the standard for much longer, and we are headed for a depression that's so easy to see it makes me sick
Neither of these 2 nominees are going to do anything but worsen the current problem. I voted for Bush, twice, and I wish every day that I could take that back. He has been absolutely dreadful.
Until we start producing again, we will never get back to where we were.
Of course I'm a fiscal conservative Christian, but neither one of these Christian candidates will do anything to make this country better.
Become energy independent, secure our borders, stop trying to manufacter democracy in other countries, and get back to the Constitution.
The only candidate worth your vote is Ron Paul. And he doesn't have a chance. Never did.
He's been saying the same thing every single year for 40 years.
I'm not a socialist, which is what I believe these current Dems to be, so I won't vote that way.
So what do I do? I probably vote McCain. But that doesn't mean I like it.
You want a real debate ? Then open your debate to a whole team of reporters and let them ask anything they want as long as it pertains to the well being of your country. The debate we just saw was 100 % predictable. The questions can only come from a limited # of topics and aren't that different from debates that occurred say..4 yrs ago.. and 4 yrs before that.. and so on !
I'm convinced that a monkey can survive a debate with this type of format.
Provide your monkey some reading glasses and 15 cards, each w/ a list of talking points orchestrated by debate professionals:
Oh, a question on our current economic situation?.. now, where's that "economy" card. Oh, here it is... blah blah blah
What's that ? a question on abortion. Now, Abortion starts w/ an A, right ?.. let's see.. here we go...blah blah blah
As long as no one minds that you say nothing of substance and merely repeat catch phrases, talking points and maybe a cutesy euphemism or two, you're home free
and it doesn't hurt if your monkey looks hot in a skirt !
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
AmericanIdle , I'll vote for ya ....
Obviously as one of the billions of non-Americans in the world, I can't vote in your so called democratic election. I have however been following the campaign since January and would like to give my two pence (more valuable than two cents y'know!!).
It seems to me that neither candidate is gonna really be that great. Under McCain/Palin things can only get worse. McCain is clearly having more than a few senior moments and Palin, well she believes the world is 6,000 years old, doesn't know what state in the union Iran is in, and let's face it, probably thinks the raptures gonna come before her term is up. That on top the fact she has no experience and is probably only there because she looks kinda hot.
The only problem I see with Obama is that he isn't far left enough. I still reckon he'd do a far better job than the two fuctards on the Republican side, and with Biden as his running mate with years of experience in foreign policy, there doesn't seem prima facie to be any real weakness. I was also very pleased when he made his speech on religion. It seems to me that he will respect atheists' rights, and with his reforms on education there is a chance that the tide will turn on the rise of fundamentalism. I dunno, I assume the country will still end up eating itself, but slower and less painfully.
Atheist Books
From what I heard Palin was debating some guy named "O'Biden". I noticed that in the climate change question Palin parroted the same answer she gave to Katie Couric. No doubt she was coached on the probable questions and gave pat answers provided by her coaches.
What annoyed me was when she tried to play the Reagan "I'm folksy" route with words like "dog gone it" and other crap. Just put your fingers in the air and make shooting noises, "by golly".
Are you saying our election is non-democratic because of a) the electoral college system, b) the two-party system or c) because you can't vote in it? I ask because the fact is, the election of your Prime Minister (aside from his or her initial election as an MP) is less democratic than ours on point (a) and offers only marginally more choice with one more major party on (b). As for (c), don't complain unless you're prepared to become a citizen. The argument that the United States' influence on the world necessitates some kind of de jure international steerage of the country is the kind of thing that enervates the Republican base and does no real good.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
I think he's saying that American elections are less democratic because of points a) and b). It wouldn't make sense if c).
The electoral college system has significant flaws and the two party system doesn't seem terribly democratic. Of course, there's more points to be made than just those two, but there are entire books dedicated to that topic and I won't write a summary. Suffice-it-to-say that the American constitutional republic has significant problems especially from an outsiders perspective and that, admittedly, there are problems with the systems in constitutional democratic monarchies as well, but not problems by comparison. A democracy is not defined by how political leaders are elected (the president and PM are not comparable leaders after all), but by other criteria.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I'm not disputing any of those points Thom. I'm stating that a parliamentary government built on the British model is no more "democratic" than the republic established by the US Constitution, especially when one considers the extended executive powers that Prime Ministers in Commonwealth governments have been accumulating for themselves in the past few decades. President and Prime Minister may indeed be different offices by official state definition, but you can't blame Thatcher and Blair for the ills of a nation if you don't actually consider them to be more than just "first among equals". As for our republic having significant problems with regard to our constitution, I'll point out that at least we have a constitution.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
I never said this country was democratic. I just simply pointed out that yours isn't. I live in a two party system too (although some say it's more a 2.5 party system). A two party system can never be called democratic. Also the media is geared towards the fact of a two party system, so much so that the presidential debates never include the third party nominations. Of course, the US is a First Past The Post electoral system, just like us, and this naturally leads to a two party system, there is very little that can be done bar changing it (in the UK, the Labour govt. looked into changing it when they came to power in 97, but concluded that since FPTP had given them such a large majority, that they'd best leave it be). The British Electoral system has been described as an elective dictatorship, in that there is no limits to what a majority government can actually do. The US conversely has installed checks and balances in its constitution, a President can never have as much power as say Tony Blair or Maggie Bitcher had (although even a lame duck President probably has more power than Gordon Brown). One thing bugs me about the US elections though, is the the media emphasises the two party system so much that third parties have no chance to put forward their ideas. The presidential debates are always one on one, even where there may be four or five candidates. In Britain, this practice is limited, all the parties are given an equal amount of TV broadcast time (normally in short 2 minute broadcasts) during elections and they can't purchase any more (although I think what they can buy in terms of other media publicity i.e. paper, billboards or the internet). Even though the outcome of the next general election (whenever it may be) is pretty much already decided, there is still plenty of media attention given to the third parties, particularly the Liberal Democrats (who normally gain between 20-50 seats (of approx 640) in Parliament).
Neither country is all that democratic to be honest. I feel as much let down by British "democracy" as I'm sure many Americans are.
Atheist Books
It's clear, however, and you agree, that neither system is as 'democratic' as either of us would like for reasons both similar and different.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
From
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
That chart both encourages me and scares me to death. I still have a really hard time wrapping my head around the idea that there are millions of people who think McCain/Palin is a good idea. I can't think of any good reasons why this ought not be a landslide for Obama, but it's probably going to come down to 27 votes in Florida.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Me too Hamby, fooled again Yicks ! Crazy people .... A fun sad song to play,
Wont Get Fooled Again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE
Atheism Books.
It does show that Obama's on top though. That's slightly less worrying.
Atheist Books
Yes, she claims that global warming could just be a natural cycle that has been occurring repeatedly. But this then implies that the earth is very old which contradicts her wacky religion and support for creationism. So the earth is very old when it comes to global warming policy but very young when it comes to teach creationism in schools.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
That is comedic genius. Lol.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I love it.