VP Debate

[FMBI]

Quick summary of my opinion: Biden won. Like Obama, he just kept pulling facts out to respond to the Palin/McCain bull!@#$%^&*. That might not carry as much of a quick buzz as Palin's "everyman" appeal, but over the last several weeks, we have seen a lot of people deserting the Republican party in disgust over McCain's disregard for the truth - I see no reason why it shouldn't be the same this time. My prediction is that McCain will come fairly near to closing the gap over the next several days, perhaps taking back North Carolina, Nevada, and Florida, but will fall behind again once people figure out what's going on.

 

 

Opinions?

[AstroProdigy]

Biden would need to completely humiliate her to win and even that might cause a backlash among some of the psycho McCain voting feminists as "sexism" the way Obama was accused of "sexism" for making Hillary look dumb. There's no beating her there's only losing or getting a tie. Obama can humiliate McCain though as McCain's illusion of being a maverick has disappeared to the gullible media after so much abuse of it.

[FMBI]

Astro, where have you been the last week and a half? The media was sucking him off for a while, yes, but lately they have actually been correcting statements after quoting McCain and Palin. And when a lazy media like ours goes that far, you know there's been a sea change.

[Bak]

I think Biden won but Palin did well too. Everything she said was very scripted, down the the point of ignoring the question and even having a prepared, "i'm might not answer these questions the way you want me to" blurb. But she didn't mess up and may even have been slightly inspiring at times.

 

any favorite moments? Mine was when Palin said she agreed with "that one al queda leader". My roommate and I just looked at each other and laughed.

[NBVegita]

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.

[»doc flabby]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7649833.stm is an interesting read.

 

Quite a few of Palins points were factually incorrect.

Edited October 3, 2008 by doc flabby

[NBVegita]

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.

[FMBI]

It isn't "giving the benefit of the doubt" to someone if they slightly misspeak but their point is valid, IMO - it's simply honesty.

 

And why shouldn't they criticize Palin for getting the general's name wrong? That was one of her biggest points in the debate, that he supposedly agreed with her and McCain - if she couldn't get that one right, then what could she get right?

 

Edit - I assume that your post was referring strictly to the points mentioned on the BBC article, and not to ones found in other sources?

 

Edit2 - It turns out I was right some time back when I said somewhere (dunno if it was on here) that Palin would dominate a McCain presidency so much that it would be irrelevant whether he survived or not. I loved the moment when she talked about taking over the legislative branch - woot, Executive's already got Justice in its pocket, let's go for a a clean sweep! And her continuing attempts to brush off any criticism of Cheney's record is certainly heartening, to say the least.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[SeVeR]

Didn't Obama correct himself in the Pres debate right after he said McCain's name wrong? He would say something like "Jim, i mean John"

 

It's not giving the benefit of the doubt to Biden when his mistakes were far less severe than Palins. If Biden claimed McCain said something in December instead of in January while still making a correct argument, then it's not as severe as Palin talking about the wrong general entirely! How can she make a point about a general agreeing with her when she doesn't even know who he is.

 

If Biden says an billion surplus (something McCain and Obama said in the previous debate) when the most up to date figure happens to now be 24 billion, then his point is still correct and just as valid.

 

You should look at how objective you're being NBV. Don't take this out on the BBC.

 

You keep saying you're a fence sitter, but its clear to me that you're a republican at heart and have been for years...

Edited October 3, 2008 by SeVeR

[AstroProdigy]

NBV as a fence sitter is like McCain as a maverick.

[2pac]

Palin had her cheat sheet goin on, she a dumb!@#$%^&*.

[NBVegita]

[SeVeR]

I don't have time to reply to everything, but this makes my point:

2) Yes his point is still valid but if Palin used outdated information to back up and incorrectly magnify her point' date=' you all would have torn her a new !@#$%^&*hole. In fact if any republican had done that you would not be reacting like this.[/quote'] This shows how you've taken it upon yourself to defend the Republican candidate. As i said before McCain and Obama both quoted the same figure that Biden did, as this is the most publicised/known figure. I didn't have a go at McCain for it, so why would i "tear a new !@#$%^&*hole" for Palin. It's like you're standing in her corner defending her, which is why I call you a Republican supporter.

 

It's nice to say you're above it all, and it's all relative, etc.... But you have far more in common with the Republican party and conservatism than you do with any other political group.

 

Yes because it seems if you don't unilaterally side with the "left" on this forum your a !@#$%^&* redneck conservative Republican. You'll learn that politics are like life' date=' it's not all black and white, left or right, Republican or Democrat.[/quote'] I don't like the Democrat party, i don't like Hillary Clinton, I don't like the Republican Party and i don't like Bush/McCain. I don't like any President/government the U.S. has had in the last 100 years. I like Obama. Don't !@#$%^&*ociate me with a black/white, left/right, republican/democrat picture.

 

Once again you're pushing me and everyone else to one side so that you can sit on the fence and act like you know better. It's sickening.

 

-EDIT- And 2pac, that sig is mesmerizing...

Edited October 4, 2008 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

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.

But as this topic is about the VP debate we won't open that other can of worms.

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.

[SeVeR]

And how does me pointing out overwhelming bias against the republican party on this forum mean I support the republican candidate?

Well, if you can't see the humour in that statement...

 

You're !@#$%^&*uming there IS overwhelming bias. I pointed out how you made an incorrect !@#$%^&*umption. You ignored this by saying "it's not about McCain and Obama". What a ridiculous counter because if there is no comparison for the alleged bias then there is no bias!

 

Not to mention, how can my "Republican bias" be against Palin and not McCain. I see neither McCain or Biden as being mistaken because it's a non-issue: whatever the amount was, the point is still the same. You somehow think i would have attacked Palin for saying it, which is why i'm calling you a defender of the Republican candidate for personal ideological reasons.

 

You've !@#$%^&*umed bias where there is none, and as such, you've revealed your own.

[Bak]

reality has a liberal bias

[AstroProdigy]

There isn't an overwhelming liberal bias on this forum; it's just that Aileron, Picard, and Brain prove the opposite of what they believe every time they speak.

 

Also, from FactCheck.org that you linked us to if you scroll a little more than halfway down Palin clearly referred to McClellan as the general in Afghanistan

 

Anyway I think this debate should be turned into a 2pac sig debate in which he posts similar alternatives to his current sig and we debate which one is best.

Edited October 5, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[Bak]

I think most people here pick their positions issue by issue, and why you throw Brain in there?

[AstroProdigy]

I don't know he came in for a bit to spread his Christian greaterthanthouness the way he does in his zone.

 

Everyone has a tendency to lump issues together to make more sense out of it/have someone to follow. I'd say most people here have some set of predetermined beliefs (not necessarily religious ones) that they can't escape from. It might be everyone actually.