NBVegita

I don't see why someone voting based on their religious beliefs is any worse than voting based upon what I guess you would consider personal beliefs. For most stalwartly religious people, their religious beliefs are their personal beliefs. If Hate feels that McCain is a better christian or "closer to Jesus" or however you want to phrase it, and because of that he feels he will uphold the christian beliefs better, then I'd say he has a perfectly good reason to vote for McCain.

Then does: also invalidate your opinion on the subject? I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but that posts looks to me like simply because he likes Palin you invalidate his opinion on the debate.

I actually cannot weigh in on this yet as I had a family event last night so I missed the debate.

"The US presidential race has now become so polarised both Republicans and Democrats will likely see the report's findings as vindication for their own trenchant views about Mrs Palin, says the BBC's Richard Lister in Washington. Alaska's governor will either be seen as the victim of a Democratic party hatchet job, or a hypocrite. Most voters, for now at least, seem more concerned about who will extract them from the current economic crisis, rather than any questions about political infighting in far-off Alaska, our correspondent adds." I think that just about sums it up. I think little things like this don't bother me because all politicians do these things, McCain, Palin, Obama, Biden, Bush, Gore, Clinton, Bush Sr., I could go all day. It's just a matter of who gets caught. You don't become a politician of that maginitude without playing dirty somewhere. Overall there are much more significant issues to decide an election over than if the VP candidate tried to get her abusive ex-brother in-law fired.

I don't think there will be much debate in this topic, he was nearly as elusive as his first debate, but Obama clearly won the debate.

Non-publicized? That report has been out sine early August. I criticize all candidates for mis-speaking but we were only talking about Bidens use, not McCains/Obama's. pertaining to the statement above. And how does me pointing out overwhelming bias against the republican party on this forum mean I support the republican candidate? I !@#$%^&*ociate you with the left side, not democrats, simply because I do not believe there has been a single subject we've debated where you do not side with the "leftist view" It's not a matter of pushing anyone to any side. I don't think there would be a single person on this forum who would not group you, Fin and Astro as the most "leftist thinking" people on this forum. Yet you three never miss a chance to try to group me with Thunde and Ail who are most likely the most "right thinking" people on this forum. Again I'll state that in a thread where everyone is attacking an idea, me simply attacking claims I feel are false does not mean I support the idea. For example in an earlier topic I countered someones argument about McCain's voting record because it simply wasn't true. That doesn't mean I like McCain, I just hate seeing false knowledge being thrown around. If it appears that I defend the right more, well yes I do. There is a simple reason for that. There is rarely a post made by someone on here attacking the left. When Ail posted the mis-leading quotes about Obama, I was one of the first people to say they were bogus. I also, even if I disagree with their view point, can underside the other side of the fence. A lot of people on here grab onto one idea (I have been guilty myself) and refuse to even consider the other side's opinion or that the opinion has any grounding. In cases like these I sometimes play the devils advocate simply to show that every argument has two sides and in political topic the fact that we are debating them means that Americans give credit to both sides. But that last paragraph was basically useless because people will believe what they want no matter what is said.

I do have to say I'm dissappointed with the bbc. Normally they are quite good at being non partisan but in this case they gave every benefit of a doubt to biden and took the hardline against Palin. I also note that they criticized Palin for mis-stating the generals name yet they did not criticize Obama, in their article about the pres debate, for mis-stating McCain's first name 3 times. Factcheck.org has been the best (imo) so far.

Of course Biden won, he was supposed to. If he had lost the debate to Palin I would have been shocked. I would disagree with you on that Obama beat McCain though. I think Biden had the strongest debate out of the lot of them but Obama was more evasive than McCain was in their debate. Sure Obama outlined his policies well, but when the question is what policies will you have to cut/delay if the bailout happens and you simply (but implicitly) state all of the policies you CAN'T cut (which was just about all of em) it's being evasive. But as this topic is about the VP debate we won't open that other can of worms. Overall Biden won as expected but Palin did better than I expected.

If you want to be more than friends get a spine and say so! Also sneak from personal experience attractive girls tend to hang with less attractive women. I've met very few attractive women who don't describe at least half of their girl friends as "Well she's a really sweet girl" I believe that to be true for the most part. One side will have attraction, I mean it's hard wired into us.

Only if you're sleeping with her. On another note, if a guy knows that this girl thinks of him as only a friend he needs to come to terms with it and either bury his feelings if he honors their friendship that much,m man up and tell her how he feels or break off the friendship. I don't feel bad for the guys caught in the "friend zone" because it is mostly your fault if you get thrown into the "friend zone" and as the old adage says, there are plenty of fish in the sea.

You know i was reading through this topic and this really made me laugh. I mean thats just about the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. First even the pill is only 99% effective. That is !@#$%^&*uming you are on it. Many girls don't feel comforitable letting their parents know they're sexually active and a lot of parents aren't comforitable with their kids being sexually active under the age of 18. Condoms are mostly effective but have their flaws. I mean there are more ways than i can list where you can have an accidental pregnancy. Even my mother had her tubes tied after her second child and found out nearly 20 years later that the surgery was not a complete success and that she could have gotten pregnant. Also !@#$%^&*uming that Palin herself does not use the pill does not mean she is against it. I mean I don't hunt so does that mean I'm against hunting? I mean seriously.

Thats where it is a matter of opinion Sever. Some people believe that the second the sperm fertilizes the egg, you have life. Others believe its when you have brain function. More over some people believe something different still. Who's right and who's wrong? Well I think that is what the entire abortion argument is about. Also choosing to abstain from creating a life ( or sex in general) has no parallel to destroying a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus after already making the choice to partake in an activity where the consequences, even under the most reliable situation, can be thus. With that said I am 110% pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I can't respect the other side of the argument.

And a dictionary

I would have to disagree Sever. I find it illogical to believe that a professional speech writer would have an incomplete sentence that contradicts the sentence before and after. I will give you that it was poor speech by Palin. But i would even venture to say that if posted in the news (your interpretation) they would have added: "(Pray) That our leaders, our national leaders, are..." So as not to confuse the statement and to make more sense of an incomplete sentence. Also the semi colon with an also would indicate that she is asking you to also pray for this country. This reminds me an awful lot like when people were disecting Obama's sentences incorrectly.

And Obama was a Senator for 4 years, 2 of which he's spent campaigning where he has no executive experience at all. In fact the one appointment (as Chairman) he was given in the senate he neglected his duties to campaign. (On a side note I'm kinda confused how he was given the Chair of the European affairs (I believe) when he has no foreign affairs experience) I agree that Palin is inexperienced, but so is Obama. What I do find funny is that unless something terrible happens, Palin will have a year or two as VP, before it would be likely that she would become President. Thus at that time making her more qualified to be President than Obama is currently. If you go by the average male life expectancy, then she has just about 4 years as VP to be ready to be President. This works in both ways, you cannot say that Palin is more than ready to be VP (unless you're trying to use the argument above) and say that Obama isn't ready to be President. Yet you can't say that Obama is ready to be President, but Palin isn't ready to be VP. And are you serious with this baby talk? I mean that's about as credible as Ail coming on here stating that Obama is secretly the nephew of Osama. !@#$%^&* my mom was 5'1" 90lbs when she had both my brother and I. The most weight she gained for either of us was 17 lbs. One of the women at work had the same thing, she finally let her boss know at 7 months and no one knew. Man gotta love election year politics.

Personally I don't think that hurts her. How many of you can honestly say you know what the President, Vice President or other do on a day to day basis?

There are a few reasons I can see behind it: 1) She is a woman. 2) She is the conservative that McCain is not. 3) She is fairly attractive (yes charisma and attractiveness tend to go hand in hand) 4) It's hard to use the inexperience argument against her as Obama only has slightly more, which he is running for the big show. (Note that this also works against McCain) 5) She fits in perfectly with McCain's claim to launch a Crusade against Washington. 6) She is appealing to the blue collars 7) She is the most popular governor in the United States, something that seems lacking in the Republican party. She is a fresh republican face with no ties what so ever to Bush or the Bush administration. In a post earlier I said as of now I would vote for Obama and I still stand by that. There are plenty of negatives, but also plenty of positives involved in this also. This is a big gamble, but McCain needs just that. If they win, this will be labeled a brilliant strategy. If they lose he will be labeled and idiot. It's pretty much like anything else.

Fin, I posted that after reading through just about every page on his website. That is why I was confused. The only things I saw were him wanting to cut taxes for corporate America (which he claims to make it more affordable for companies to stay in America) and his policies towards Iran. Other than that I couldn't find anything else. And sever, you always mistakenly slosh me in with the crazy conservative republicans. As I've stated, there are policies on both sides that I simply don't agree with, so for me I need to weight out which policies I agree with more as a whole (and on important issues). I personally believe with so much time before the election people should still be open minded about the candidates. The second you resign yourself to voting for one or the other, you automatically view both sides objectively. If I had to absolutely vote today, I would vote for Obama. Oh and Astro here's an interesting site: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_i...voted_with.html So it's good to know that if Obama becomes president, he will almost certainly vote unilaterally with the democrats. And Fin accuses McCain of trying to appease his party lol http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270 That will also show you just what he did actually vote on and what he hasn't. btw fin how bored were you to dig up that quote from almost 4 years ago in your sig? lol

As someone on the fence I do have to say I agree with Hoch's !@#$%^&*essment. It's funny, I find certain people who constantly complain against "Republican" propaganda, yet seem to reiterate "Democratic" propaganda. I've tried to find founding for some of Fin's statements above and can't seem to find any. If you look at McCain, his policies are vastly different from the Bush administration and actually Barack and McCain agree on a chunk of issues. I don't see how anyone can honestly take McCain voting record and policies and try to call him a Bush clone. It just doesn't make sense. Not saying that I support either at the moment, but my mind is open to either. They both have their faults, they both have things I agree and disagree with it, but they're both also good candidates.

But your problem is yet again that the American people don't make and p!@#$%^&* laws. We elect people to do that for us. Those people are the ones who don't get their information from television politics. Television politics are really only good for elections. As you said, people are so easily convinced by the news that they are easily influenced to what you want. If you came out with a news article on every station that said smoking was good for your health, half the americans would eat it up without a second thought. Over half the people in this country couldn't even tell you the last law that was passed or what the details of that law were. In an ideal world people would make the laws, but as it stands laws are made by legislatures that are influenced more by private interests than they are by the people and democratic process they represent. Even if you are trying to say that people really do p!@#$%^&* laws, adding more companies that should also be taxed should just increase the taxation. If people are willing to tax companies, why should mentioning that we don't tax a different group, stop them from wanting to tax anything? The only way your theory works is you have two groups. Group A is getting kickbacks from Companies A. Group B is getting kickbacks from Companies B. Group B wants to tax Comanies A. Group A says well then we need to tax Companies B. Each group wants their kickbacks so no one gets taxed. And even at that, the problem isn't saying to tax both sets of companies, it's that no one will for fear of losing their kickbacks.

Sever, your whole !@#$%^&* argument is an exageration of an ideal with no testing or data behind it. The only data brought in was Doc and that was simply showing the data on how much drugs are inflated. I think the only thing we've all agreed on is that prohibition being lifted on alcohol has done nothing but increase alcohol use. Lifting prohibition on drugs and drastically cutting the price would have a more severe effect. Also note that drugs are supply and demand. Right now there is only one way to get the supply so the drug dealers set the price and you either pay it or don't get drugs. As soon as the government lowered prices, so would the drug dealers. I've spent way more time than I expected to in this argument. We've had this so many times it's not worth it. This is my last post in this topic as it's just not worth it.

The problem with your argument is that debates on public television aren't where these things are decided.