# Debate - your thoughts?



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

i realize that the mainstream press will probably say that it was a "tie" because gov. palin was able to string some sentences together, but i think any fair assessment would say that biden was clearly the "winner."


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Of what I saw (between flipping back from witnessing the bloodbath currently going on in Wrigley Field), I thought Palin did a good job. She obviously worked very hard to prep for the debate. Of the questions she couldn't answer well, I thought she did a decent job of bridging back to the talking points she could nail. 

I expected Biden to do well too, and he did.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I thought both had their good and not so good moments, but overall I thiought they both did a pretty good job. I didn't see a clear "winner" on either side. Pretty much a draw.

Cruiser


----------



## thunderw21 (Sep 21, 2008)

Both did well, Palin proved she has what it takes.

Now the MSM will be forced to stop with the "Palin is an idiot" business.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I'd be reluctant to say that either won, if the debate had been held in a vacuum. Considering the media/left-wing (redundant, I know) barrage against Palin, she came out ahead. Bigtime.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Palin far exceeded my expectations. That said, I'm still not sure she has what it takes.

Biden tried so hard to remember his place (VP pick), but at times acted like he was the presidential nominee.

Overall I'd give the advantage to Palin.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

It was like watching two different shows. Biden demonstrated mastery of the substance, understanding of the issues, and the wisdom and judgment that have come with his age and experience. I think he did better than expected, because he kept the snarky, cutesy stuff out.

Palin avoided saying anything stupid. As such, she exceeded expectations. She reliably adhered to her preloaded talking points, and anything that she could do to make her not look as stupid as when Katie Couric was interviewing her really helped her. Still, her performance was so substance-free that it was like watching Kelly Ripa. I do think the down-home bit is a little overdone, especially when it's a substitute for really answering the questions. Still, the TV commentators were saying that the conservative bloggers were very happy with her performance, and I assume that's true.

That said, at this stage of the campaign, if the ticket that's behind is having to worry about shoring up their base, that doesn't sound like a good sign for them.

On substance: Biden by a mile.
On impact: probably a tie.

The commentators were saying this wasn't a game-changing performance, but a game changer is what they needed.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Palin held her ground

I wonder who of the American public bought the "we're not a perfect people, but a people who stand for perfect ideals" line

I thought Biden was dressed nice


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Tie goes to the one with the lowest expectations: here Governor Palin.

To be honest, I found the debate very, very boring and struggled to watch it.


----------



## ChicagoTrad (Feb 19, 2007)

I thought Biden did pretty well. He was prepared and articulate. His factual mistakes were generally not too obvious, but we'll hear about them today. He didn't have any glaring gaffes. In a debate competition he would have won.

Palin didn't make any big mistakes, her answers weren't as detailed and weren't as in-depth as Biden's. Nor was her delivery always as smooth.

However, Palin wasn't playing the same game as Biden and had a great night because of it. This was her chance to talk directly to the people (without media edits and "framing") and she wasn't there to win debating points - she was there to sell herself. Partly because of the setup the media gave her by portraying her as a bimbo the past few weeks and partly because she has an great ability to connect with non-beltway types, I think she won the political side of this debate easily.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

First impressions are everything...did anyone else notice that Joe Biden seemed to be using Richard Nixon's make-up guy. He looked like warmed over death and I found myself thinking back to the Kennedy/Nixon debate! Palin definitely made the best visual impression.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Biden clearly has the knowledge and ability to be president from day one. Palin simply does not. Politically, Palin accomplished much more then Biden did last night. She definitely overperformed compared to her CBS interview. All of the polling shows independents and undecided voters thought Biden won. I would look at all of it from a different perspective. The key to the democrats winning this election is to connect the dots from Dubya to McCain and to rally the middle class. Karl Rove will even admit this. In the 2 debates the dems hit this message home many times. McCain and Palin simply have no answer for them. I love Palin's idea that the performance of the Bush administration has nothing to do with the next 4 years under McCain, even though McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time.

I will have to agree that it was a very boring 90 minutes.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

*On Iraq:*
_Biden_: Set timelines for withdrawals and force the Iraqi's have to spend some of their billions of dollars of surplus that we've been pouring in there rather than draining the US budget. Something that many in the military have been saying.

_Palin_: Stay as long as it takes without an exit strategy and timelines are a "white flag of surrender".

Biden articulated a clear strategy whereas Palin basically said there is no plan then hurled an insult. Biden wins

*On Afghanistan*:

_Biden_: Listen to General McKiernan, more troops are needed on a long term basis (not just a surge). This is where the Bin Laden is, this is where the mujahadeen are comming from, this is where troops need to be concentrated not in Iraq.

_Palin_: Referred to General McKiernan as General McClellan, the civil war general who kept asking for more troops and whom Lincoln replaced with Grant because he was afraid to fight. Advocated a surge, not sustained troop involvement and ignoring one of Petraus' key counter-insurgency principle sthat what ever you are doing today may not work tomorrow or in every situation.

Again Biden showed a clear grasp of what was going on and Palin advocated doing in Afghanistan what we are doing in Iraq. Biden wins.

*On Taxes:*
_Biden:_ Tax relief for those making under $250,000 a year by eliminating tax breaks for the highest income brackets.

_Palin_: No wealth redistribution. Obama wants to raise taxes!

Biden layed out a plan to help the majority of middle class americans and explained where the money would come from without driving the US into more debt. Four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposal, which include higher income and payroll taxes only for the wealthiest wage-earners. Palin used the communist code word of "wealth redistribution" and the conservative rant of Obama wants to raise taxes without realizing that the current tax scheme redistributes wealth from middle class americans to the top earners. Biden wins.

*On the role of the V.P.:*

_Biden:_ The role of the Vice President is to advise the president and as a tie breaking vote in the Senate.

_Palin: _The role of the Vice President is to preside over the Senate (!?!?!!!!)

Wow. Biden wins.

I could go on but it is too painful.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Fortunately*

I found other things to do than to listen to these two people demonstrate why neither party is fit to govern. From the clips I have been subjected to, I would say that both candidates conclusively made the case that the other side shouldn't be trusted with any elected office.


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

Palin didn't implode, so McCain lives to campaign another day. The bar was set pretty low.

Now we watch to see if they let Governor Palin out of the box or hide her away again like before the debate.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Why am I not surprised? The far left guys think Biden won and the far right guys think Palin won. 

The only folks who appear to have any objectivity at all are those in the middle, both to the left and right of center. Those to the extremes on both sides will always hear what they want to hear whether they actually heard it or not. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## aspectator (Aug 27, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> Why am I not surprised? The far left guys think Biden won and the far right guys think Palin won.
> 
> The only folks who appear to have any objectivity at all are those in the middle, both to the left and right of center. Those to the extremes on both sides will always hear what they want to hear whether they actually heard it or not. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


So, what does someone in the middle think? I'd really like to know.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

*Transcript of debate:*

Here's a link to the transcript of the debate if anyone wants to check what they heard or missed the debate:

https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/index.html?section=cnn_latest


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

aspectator said:


> So, what does someone in the middle think? I'd really like to know.


Was thinking that myself. Christian Evangelicals put Jimmy Carter in office and Bush appointed more women and minorities to executive positions than any previous administration. Nixon, while tramping on civil liberties with domestic spying also advocated government funded treatment for drug users over incarceration as part of his war on crime. Kennedy passed the Civil Rights Act at the same time he was going to nuke Cuba. Are they right or left? Are these labels even helpful?


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

*I lean left but...*

I think Palin did a great job. Maybe its because as someone said earlier, that the bar was set so low, but I couldn't find any issue where I wanted to jump at the TV and strangle her.

I'm not sure, for educated people like most of us, on both sides, that these debates are helpful *AT ALL*. We know what each side stands for, and where they stand on the issues. We do this because we read up on them.

Unfortunately, most of the American people are stupid. Maybe not the Americans that we call our friends and colleagues, but the average guy on the street, is dumb, and mostly dumbed by apathy. Most undecided Americans did not watch the debate in full, they were watching the Cubs and Dodgers (no offense TMMKC) or Law and Order reruns on TNT, or whatever HBO was showing, and would get their info from clips and bits from the news media outlets that have their own agendas. The fact that Jack mentioned that listening to Palin was like listening to Kelly Ripa sounds horrifying to me. Most Americans get their news from peoiple like Kelly Ripa...and that may have even been a ploy by McCain and Palin.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Debates are rather pointless these days. Everything is rehearsed. Everything is prepared ahead of time. Nothing is actually debated, it's all just vague concepts, couched promises, and dodgy accusations thrown at each other.

Part of the problem is that the scope has changed. Nowadays there are two, maybe three debates to go over everything the president is in charge of, which seems like nearly everything. There are hundreds of executive branch departments responsible for everything from space shuttle launches to regulating cheese production to setting marginal tax rates. You can't possible go over even general policies in a meaningful way withing a few hours.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

aspectator said:


> So, what does someone in the middle think? I'd really like to know.


I would like to think I am somewhat in the middle, in that I despise both parties equally. Rather than the pointless scripted questions and answers, I would have preferred another round of questions from actual voters, and maybe live fact checking. This morning, every news agency seems to be pointing out where the two candidates lied or distorted the truth. It would have been much more entertaining to see this pointed out to them on live television. Maybe they could have hooked electrodes up to them with increasing shock values every time. I would pay to see that.


----------



## johnjack11 (Oct 13, 2006)

In the middle also.

Biden seemed to offer more substance, Palin was all about connecting with the "common people", not sure which is the best strategy in the long run.

I like Biden more now, I think he would be better representative for the US in the international realm...


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

charlie500 said:


> *On the role of the V.P.:*
> 
> _Biden:_ The role of the Vice President is to advise the president and as a tie breaking vote in the Senate.
> 
> ...


It should be. You are completely wrong. The job of the _preside_nt of the senate is to...preside over the senate. Guess who the president of the senate is.


----------



## JohnRov (Sep 3, 2008)

Biden showed he's a career politician and was smooth as silk. Palin shows she needs a lot more practice. It's performance to me, few politicians really know more than a few topics in depth. Witness interviews with clueless Congressmen regarding the bailout to see what I mean.

In the end, this did enough to stop the bleeding from McCain's disasterous week. It will be forgotten in another week and we will be back to Obama vs. McCain. I can't believe those are my choices...


----------



## aspectator (Aug 27, 2008)

johnjack11 said:


> In the middle also.
> 
> Biden seemed to offer more substance, Palin was all about connecting with the "common people", not sure which is the best strategy in the long run.
> 
> I like Biden more now, I think he would be better representative for the US in the international realm...


That sounds completely reasonable.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

johnjack11 said:


> In the middle also.
> 
> Biden seemed to offer more substance, Palin was all about connecting with the "common people", not sure which is the best strategy in the long run.
> 
> I like Biden more now, I think he would be better representative for the US in the international realm...


I'm not so sure. As one of my partners pointed out to me:

"I consider Biden's remarks about Pakistan to be a gaffe.

Here is what he said in response to a question from Iffle asking him to discuss Iran and Pakistan:

BIDEN: 'Well, they're both extremely dangerous. I always am focused, as you know Gwen, I have been focusing on for a long time, along with Barack on Pakistan. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons. Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean. Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing. They are more than - they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that's able to be deployed. So they're both very dangerous. They both would be game changers.'

I realize there are big problems ahead for Pakistan and in our relationship with them. However, they continue to be a nominal ally. They have in fact assisted us in the war on terror (even though we are unhappy with their protection of the tribal lands near the border with Afganistan which is a haven for terrorists). Biden, a man highly placed in the U.S. government, is casually insinuating that Pakistan might launch a nuclear tipped missile against Israel. How can a man in his position even whisper such a rancid libel? It is also a gratuitous insult to Pakistan's struggling new prime minister to suggest that Iran and Pakistan are "both very dangerous" as though there is comparability in the respective situations. I think Biden's comments reflected a major error in judgment. I assume we will hear from the Pakistan ambassador to the United States."


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

McCain = Biden
Obama = Palin

Can't we do better than these clowns?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

charlie500 said:


> *On the role of the V.P.:*
> 
> _Biden:_ The role of the Vice President is to advise the president and as a tie breaking vote in the Senate.
> 
> ...


Huh? From PowerLine:

"This isn't what's conventionally described as a gaffe, and it won't swing any votes, but last night Joe Biden garbled the Constitutional role of the Vice President. I wanted to read the transcript before commenting; here was Gwen Ifill's question:

Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
Here is Biden's answer, in full:

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.

For a man of Biden's experience, this is a surprising series of misstatements. First of all, he gets wrong one of the most basic facts about the Constitution: Article 1 establishes the legislative branch, not, as Biden said, the executive branch. This is not exactly an obscure fact; my 17-year-old daughter pointed it out at the time.

Second, it simply isn't true that the Constitution treats the Vice President only as a member of the executive branch. The Vice President is mentioned in Article II as part of the executive branch, but he is also given legislative powers by Section 3 of Article 1, which establishes the Senate:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
Vice President Cheney's "bizarre notion" is in keeping with the plain text of the Constitution.

Finally, Biden misstated the Vice President's role in the Senate. It isn't true that he "preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote." The Constitution contemplates that the Vice President will be the full-time President of the Senate, replaced by a President pro tempore "in the absence of the Vice President." It's true that the Vice President only gets to vote in case of a tie; but, of course, that's the only time it matters.

If Joe Biden were a high school student taking a test on the Constitution in a government course, he would get a C or a D. Some would say his mistakes were minor, and, as I said, they certainly won't swing any votes. But it is distinctly odd that a man who has been in the Senate for more than three decades doesn't understand the Constitutional role of the Vice President with respect to that body."

I think that about nails it.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Wasn't Biden, like Obama, a "professor" of constitutional law?

Don't be surprised, though, folks. Left-wing constitutional theoriests spend their entire careers trying to avoid the text of the Constitution. Heck, in most law schools, students never actually even read the Constitution. I think it was like "Appendix H" in my Conlaw casebook.


----------



## johnjack11 (Oct 13, 2006)

Good point!

Not sure how Palin will be able to get other countries to relate to her soccer mom analogies though.

I still like her, I think she is possibly more genuine than most of the other politicians we here from. Sadly I have so little faith in these people that I wonder if it is just a well rehearsed act...

I would like to think that either way we will be better off than we currently are, the alternative is frightening!



Mike Petrik said:


> I'm not so sure. As one of my partners pointed out to me:
> 
> "I consider Biden's remarks about Pakistan to be a gaffe.
> 
> ...


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> It should be. You are completely wrong. The job of the _preside_nt of the senate is to...preside over the senate. Guess who the president of the senate is.


My point was the question was not a 5th grade civic's test. My understanding of the question was that traditionally the role of the Vice President has been pretty passive. Cheney is and was pretty active in the run up and execution of the war in Iraq as well as many other areas. So Palin/Biden do you see your role as Vice President as more active like Cheney or more passive?

My impression was her answer was merely that her job was to preside of the senate which, in my opinion is a pretty literal translation to a nuanced question and that she just totally missed the nuance.

To give the devil his due, she did actually go on to imply that the Vice President could exert more control over the senate than just as a tie breaking vote. She says that there was a lot of flexibility built into the Constitution which tells me she believes the constitution is a living document and that laws are flexible (pretty liberal view). Ultimately she did say that she believed she, like Cheney, would be a lot more active in the White House than past V.P.s. To tell you the truth I had a hard time figuring out what she was saying half the time other than spitting out catch phrases.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Nice attempt to cover up your mistake. 

But, a "living document"? That's nonsense. The vice president is "president of the senate." That means more than casting tie-breaker votes.

I think you just can't deal with the fact that Palin was right and Biden was wrong.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Palin, and guns*

Gentlemen

I do not like a woman, who can shoot a caribou. This just does not jive with me.
Later
Nice weekend


----------



## obiwan (Feb 2, 2007)

My favorite points from Biden;

*BIDEN*: You're very kind suggesting my only Achilles Heel is my lack of discipline.
Others talk about my excessive passion. I'm not going to change. I have 35 years in public office. People can judge who I am. *I haven't changed* in that time.
And, by the way, a record of change -- I will place my record and Barack's record against John McCain's or anyone else in terms of fundamental accomplishments. Wrote the crime bill, put 100,000 cops on the street, wrote the Violence Against Women Act, which John McCain voted against both of them, was the catalyst to change the circumstance in Bosnia, led by President Clinton, obviously.

*BIDEN*: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was -- had been a good student.
And it didn't take me long -- *it was hard to change*, but it didn't take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Nice attempt to cover up your mistake.
> 
> But, a "living document"? That's nonsense. The vice president is "president of the senate." That means more than casting tie-breaker votes.
> 
> I think you just can't deal with the fact that Palin was right and Biden was wrong.


If that's all you got I am perfectly willing to stipulate that yes the Vice President is "president of the senate".


----------



## hurling frootmig (Sep 18, 2008)

Both Palin and Biden made mistakes either factually or in their manner.

Palin didn't come off like an idiot. Let's face it the expectations were really low.

Biden didn't attack Palin much and mostly attacked McCain. He didn't have any foot in mouth moments.

Palin stuck to the talking points. Evaded questions she didn't seem to understand or didn't want to answer. Threw in her prepared one liners when she could. She stuck to mostly generalities and didn't get into a policy debate. Didn't really offer any substantive answers in relation to policy.

Biden stuck to the theme of being a running mate for most of the night. Seemed to offer specific solutions or refer to specific instances and legislation to back up points during most of the questions. Had the moment of the debate when talking about the death of his first wife and daughter and injuries to his two sons.

Frankly, I'm not looking for "shout outs" from a VP candidate. I thought Palin appeared a lot less polished and not Presidential. Too little grasp of policy and too much reliance on being folksy. I wasn't impressed with her speaking manner. She had a dronning quality to her manner of speaking and I didn't feel like she was fully engaged in the conversation as a result. I was also not impressed with her answer about a two state solution in Israel when she could not tell us which side the State Department had met with instead she said something like "one or the other".

With all of this said, I don't think this debate helped or hurt either one very much. I think people saw that Biden was as experienced as advertised. Palin showed that she could string together sentences and deliver talking points. For her that was exceeding expectations. I heard today that the ratings for this debate exceeded those for the first Presidential debate so it will be interesting to see what happens in the polls over the next week.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

charlie500 said:


> If that's all you got I am perfectly willing to stipulate that yes the Vice President is "president of the senate".


I cannot read your original comment as evidencing anything but a mistake of fact as to the constitutional role of the vice president. Remember this?



> Biden: The role of the Vice President is to advise the president and as a tie breaking vote in the Senate.
> 
> _Palin: _The role of the Vice President is to preside over the Senate (!?!?!!!!)
> 
> Wow. Biden wins.


If you'd like to offer a better explanation than the one above, I'm listening.


----------



## aspectator (Aug 27, 2008)

It would be nice to hear more from centrist and undecided folk. What did you think of the debate?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

fenway said:


> McCain = Biden
> Obama = Palin
> 
> Can't we do better than these clowns?


Ugh...apparently not!


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

aspectator said:


> It would be nice to hear more from centrist and undecided folk. What did you think of the debate?


Some here think I'm a rabbid liberal for my disdain for President Bush, but I'd consider myself quite a centrist. I do like Biden a lot, and going into the primaries I liked John McCain as well. Early on I was strong McCain over Obama, but now I'm in the middle.

I thought Biden put on a decent performance. He did the usual Biden wandering about in his thoughts, but he offered real substance and articulated pretty well what the people would expect from an Obama Presidency. He also did a nice job of painting her into a corner several times, regardless of his interpretation of the VP's role 

Biden clearly was biting his bit several times, not responding to Palin when it was clear he wanted to let loose.

Palin did a good enough job considering the expectations. She remained confident regardless of the situation which helped her against a seasoned pro.

That being said, I didn't think she offered much substance and was more of a random talking point machine. She was really disconnected from the debate, simply speaking her rehearsed lines rather than engaging in a real discussion.

The winking and down home stuff was pretty bad if you ask me. She needs to act like a VP and not a soccer mom. I know they were just trying to play to her strength, but this is a bad idea if you ask me.

Ultimately I think the debate was a wash. Biden would have easily won on points, but the next two Presidential debates will be much more influential.

-spence


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

The McCain campaign was brilliant in stirring up the whole last minute controversy with Gwen Ifill - as it served to effectively neuter her as a real moderator.

Never once did she call Gov. Palin on avoiding the question, or changing the subject. She let her do whatever she wanted to do, talking about whatever she felt like talking about....which was essentially Alaska, energy, and five or six attack lines she was obviously fed over and over in her planning sessions.

What a painful 90 minutes.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Biden is just an old saw that still believes in lefty's ideas about how the ecomony works that has been proven wrong long ago "KILL THE GOOSE SO WE CAN GET THE GOLD QUICKER".

His foreign polices and, well everything else, lacks substance. Does he deserve the retirement he will be getting from us tax payers? No!! And some people think he's ok for vp.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

WA said:


> His foreign polices and, well everything else, lacks substance.


Huh?

-spence


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Spence said:


> Huh?
> 
> -spence


Being a professional tongue wager doesn't require substance. But they can sure make nothing sound like something.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

WA said:


> His foreign polices and, well everything else, _lacks substance_.
> Does he deserve the retirement he will be getting from us tax payers?
> No!! And some people think he's ok for vp.


Very nice, WA. But I think your post itself lacks somewhat in substance, so I've dressed it up a little, Palin-style:​"His foreign polices and, golly, well just about everything else lacks good ol' substance (wink).
And does he deserve the retirement he's sure gonna get from'in us good ol' USA taxpayers? Hey, say it ain't so, Joe!
And some people (can't'cha just imagine?) think he's a-okay for veep. Tch!!!
Oh, and you know the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom, do ya, huh? (Wink.)
A pit bull's not a moron."​


----------



## mandatory (Jun 2, 2008)

I thought the debate was alright but the part where both candidates both basically sniveled about Israel.

Why is it that Israel is given a blank check on their warcrimes? I mean, our problems in the Middle East essentially stem from our 100% support of their illegal occupation of the West Bank and the atrocities that the U.S-funded IDF commit.

It makes me sick everytime I hear a candidate basically cry and shriek support for Israel. They have hundreds of nukes, and we're worried about Iran developing nuclear technology for energy?


----------



## mommatook1 (Apr 17, 2008)

Pretty lame debate. Biden did as expected, and Palin survived but didn't really come across as anything impressive. I really wish McCain had picked someone else. I just don't see anything in Palin other than a moderately intelligent MILF.

More and more I'm considering just sitting this one out. We'll see how the next debates go but I'm getting sick of voting Republican simply because I don't want the Democratic candidate in the White House.


----------



## mommatook1 (Apr 17, 2008)

mandatory said:


> ...
> 
> It makes me sick everytime I hear a candidate basically cry and shriek support for Israel. They have hundreds of nukes, and we're worried about Iran developing nuclear technology for energy?


I'm not one of those support-Israel-no-matter-what people, but no president of Israel has ever make public statements that they want to wipe Iran off the map. Tactical strikes on their nuclear facilities, a la Osirak, maybe, but not genocide of an entire people.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> Very nice, WA. But I think your post itself lacks somewhat in substance, so I've dressed it up a little, Palin-style:​"His foreign polices and, golly, well just about everything else lacks good ol' substance (wink).
> And does he deserve the retirement he's sure gonna get from'in us good ol' USA taxpayers? Hey, say it ain't so, Joe!
> And some people (can't'cha just imagine?) think he's a-okay for veep. Tch!!!
> Oh, and you know the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom, do ya, huh? (Wink.)
> A pit bull's not a moron."​


:icon_smile_big:


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

mandatory said:


> I thought the debate was alright but the part where both candidates both basically sniveled about Israel.
> 
> Why is it that Israel is given a blank check on their warcrimes? I mean, our problems in the Middle East essentially stem from our 100% support of their illegal occupation of the West Bank and the atrocities that the U.S-funded IDF commit.
> 
> It makes me sick everytime I hear a candidate basically cry and shriek support for Israel. They have hundreds of nukes, and we're worried about Iran developing nuclear technology for energy?


This is the second thread on which this member has made negative comments about Jews. Please see his posting on the Bailout thread. Mandatory may not be an anti-semite, but he does seem obsessed with Jews and freely posts negative stereotypes about them. I for one wish he would not do that, but that is just my wish.

Buzz


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

This makes no judgement upon the thread or the above posts:

There is no religious sentiment either pro or anti expressed in the reported post. Please refrain from using the Report Post function unless there is a clear violation.

Thank you.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> This makes no judgement upon the thread or the above posts:
> 
> There is no religious sentiment either pro or anti expressed in the reported post. Please refrain from using the Report Post function unless there is a clear violation.
> 
> Thank you.


I respectfully differ with Mr. Kabbaz. I find the following post to be highly offensive.

Buzz



mandatory said:


> I thought the debate was alright but the part where both candidates both basically sniveled about Israel.
> 
> Why is it that Israel is given a blank check on their warcrimes? I mean, our problems in the Middle East essentially stem from our 100% support of their illegal occupation of the West Bank and the atrocities that the U.S-funded IDF commit.
> 
> It makes me sick everytime I hear a candidate basically cry and shriek support for Israel. They have hundreds of nukes, and we're worried about Iran developing nuclear technology for energy?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Buzz is offended by stereotypes. Well, not stereotypes of gun owners, but some stereotypes anyway.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

I agree with Alex. I saw only political references in that post, not religious ones. Unless there is clearly a _RELIGIOUS_ attack on a group, this isn't a violation, just a political opinion.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Very nice, WA. But I think your post itself lacks somewhat in substance, so I've dressed it up a little, Palin-style:​"His foreign polices and, golly, well just about everything else lacks good ol' substance (wink).
> And does he deserve the retirement he's sure gonna get from'in us good ol' USA taxpayers? Hey, say it ain't so, Joe!
> And some people (can't'cha just imagine?) think he's a-okay for veep. Tch!!!
> Oh, and you know the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom, do ya, huh? (Wink.)
> A pit bull's not a moron."​


You have a nice since of humor. And the "speach" above you wrote is pure American. Whereas, Biden is pure Socialism- can't think for myself- government has to hold my hand. I don't want a P and VP teaching people you can't do something for yourself and writing laws that way. I'm tire of Democrats wanting everybody else to be a dumb steer to be shuttle from corral to corral by idiots in government. So many people who vote Democrats think that somehow everybody in government is smarter. Why would anybody want somebody as dumb as them or dumber running their life? You were given a life to live, and your not to give it to somebody else or any group/s.

40 years of watching politics and that is what I see of the Democrats. Republicans make some dumb errors, too; But, at least they think of people as human beings and not as dumb animals.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

Teacher said:


> I agree with Alex. I saw only political references in that post, not religious ones. Unless there is clearly a _RELIGIOUS_ attack on a group, this isn't a violation, just a political opinion.


I am sorry, but I find Mandatory's references offensive, especially when taken with his other posts. In one he cites that old stereotype that Jews control our nation's finances. He states that all Federal Reserve Chairmen have been Jews, which is demonstrably false. In another he talks about his having to...and I am not quoting exactly, but you can search out the post...travel in a "colorful" part of his town. I think the sum of Mandatory's posts, including this one, demonstrate a pattern of bias and not just against Jews. I would hope that this list neither tolerates nor excuses any kind of ethnic and racial bias. I would very much like to be shown I am wrong.

Buzz


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Mandatory, 
Unlike your post in another thread you refer to Israel and therefore a comment on our foreign policy and relationships. I suppose its only proper to give you the benefit of the doubt. 

On the other hand, if you are trying to equate Israel's possession of nuclear weapons to the possibility of Iran acquiring them then you are clueless!

I could type until my fingers cramp but I don't think I would really change your mind.


----------



## mandatory (Jun 2, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> I respectfully differ with Mr. Kabbaz. I find the following post to be highly offensive.


What exactly do you find offensive?

The fact that I don't support Israeli's illegal occupation?
The fact that America gives Israel (a tiny first world country with a living standard comparable to Spain) more foreign aid than any other country?
The fact that we give Israel a pass on their warcrimes and pay them for it? Imagine if any other country had cluster-bombed Lebanon into the stone age or slaughtered children with rocks with the latest American-made weaponry?
The fact our Middle East policy is so one-sided it causes terrorism and hatred against the U.S?

If you plan to spout such nonsense, prepare to defend yourself.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Being critical of Israel doesn't make one an anti-semite. Actually I think you might find that a lot of Isrealis are pretty critical of their own policies towards Palestine.

Now, there are certianly critics that are...but comments should be taken for what they are and not assumed for what they might be.

-spence


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

M6Classic said:


> I would hope that this list neither tolerates nor excuses any kind of ethnic and racial bias. I would very much like to be shown I am wrong.
> 
> Buzz


What, pray tell, is amiss with bias... ethnic, racial, wing tips, cotton candy, whatever...as long as one's upfront about it, as _mandatory_ seems to be?​


----------



## mandatory (Jun 2, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> On the other hand, if you are trying to equate Israel's possession of nuclear weapons to the possibility of Iran acquiring them then you are clueless!


Yeah, because Israel is known for showing restraint like when they cluster bombed Lebanon.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

mandatory said:


> What exactly do you find offensive?
> 
> The fact that I don't support Israeli's illegal occupation?
> The fact that America gives Israel (a tiny first world country with a living standard comparable to Spain) more foreign aid than any other country?
> ...


I am sorry, Mandatory, but when one looks at the sum of your posts on this and other threads, it appears that you harbor a prejudice against Jews and other population groups. That is what offends me.

Buzz


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

mandatory said:


> Yeah, because Israel is known for showing restraint like when they cluster bombed Lebanon.


Terrible things happen in conflict, sometimes unintended. I would say that overall Israel showed great restraint and continues to show restraint. When they start randomly firebombing civilian areas and setting off bombs in busy markets then perhaps we could talk.

The fact that they have nukes and haven't used them is proof enough. What do you think would happen were Iran to acquire nuclear weapons? I've never heard an Israeli politician publicly proclaim that Muslims should all die or that another sovereign nation should be wiped out.


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

fenway said:


> McCain = Biden
> Obama = Palin
> 
> Can't we do better than these clowns?


Sorry, I was wrong.

McCain = Bob Dole, circa 1996. 

Game over. Let the Obama regime begin.


----------

