Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
What's bugging me is that her folksiness is reminding me of a character, but I can't think of her name. Almost always ended her sentences with "Doncha know"
Anyway, Palin got away with just going on pure tangents tonight because people didn't nail her down to anything. You could see her speechwriters and coaches speaking right through her though...and it's still absolutely frightening that this woman might be President.
She did much better than I expected but than I thought there was a good chance that she would fall apart on a simple question like in her interviews and a slight chance that she would run off the stage crying. But, I don't think she did anything to change peoples opinion about her. If you already felt she was over her head this debate did nothing at all to change that feeling even if some or all thought she did much better than expected she did not do well enough to stop being a drag on the ticket. I thought the BS folksy crap might play but that feeling went away watching the local news (Tampa) and the response from a republican supporter look defeated and flat in praising her. (I know its a sample size of one)
More opinions from a heavily biased viewer... In a phrase, the pit bull came off more of a fox terrier.
Gov. Palin gave the most heavily coached performance I've ever seen. It was immediately clear that her handlers had told her to focus on the CAMERA, not the moderator, not her opponent. For the first 25 minutes, she was bore-sighted on that camera like she wanted it stuffed and mounted above her mantle.
And at t+25 minutes, she started to fall apart... and telegraphed it by looking away from the camera. Quite a reliable tell, when she was fumbling a question, trying to figure out which canned response would be close enough.
Anyway, her performance was far better than her earlier interviews. Coaching was a good choice on balance. But in no way can I believe she "won" this debate, in any sense other than "by finishing, we are all winners."
I think Brooks had it right -- her performance was good enough to stop the "hemorrhaging" of support the McCain campaign has seen recently, but I can't imagine this swinging neutral voters, let alone eroding Obama's support. Honestly, there's not enough substance there. Maybe her personality and sparkly viciousness will play with some voters, but I won't believe it until I see it. Anyone wanting an excuse to vote for McCain will have already found it, in my opinion, well before tonight's exchange.
As for Biden, I was quite satisfied with his performance. Honestly, apart from an exaggeration here and there, I can't think of any sound criticism. Well done I says.
His emotional moment, by the way, was a big plus. I even suspect he may have specially rehearsed it, but perhaps I'm just too cynical. No way is that going to hurt him with any segment of the electorate.
My opinions alone, of course. Feel free to discard.
There is a good bit of "we didn't lose as bad as we planned so that means we won" going on which always seems like a flat out political move over a logical one to me but hey, they (and we) all do it.
Try reading this forum more. I think the general consensus was that she was the only one of the two with something to prove. At 59 percent tied or won, I think she proved it. She didn't have to "win" to make her objective.
Again, I think that was the general consensus on this forum pre-debate as well. This isn't post-debate goal pushing.
Agreed. Biden pointed out during the debate that he considers McCain to be a close friend and they have over two decades of Senate time together. For Biden, calling him anything other than John would probably be foreign and not sound right. Move on....nothing to see here.
It was a good political answer and it defuses the controversy, but I still say that anybody whos says this (including Biden or Obama) is full of crap. Marriage is not a religious issue. I'm married and I'm an atheist. Nobody has ever questioned if I have the right to be married. I have a marriage certificate from the government.
The word "marriage" may have some religious origins, I honestly don't know, but by todays usage it has little... make that nothing... to do with religion. The reason for not calling gay unions "marriage" is nothing but pandering to the religious conservatives and fear of being demonized by the church.
Yeah, I know. Politicians have to pander to certain very powerful groups. It still sticks in my craw.
Maybe that's because you don't have a right to be married in the first place. You do have a right to religious freedom and marriage is a religious institution. In the eyes of civil law, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman for the intent of procreation. You can only argue for same sex marriage on the basis of A) homosexual relationships are exactly the same as heterosexual relationships or B) you have the right to call anything whatever you want, refardless of the reality. If it is A, it is scientifically not true and will lead back into coourt time after time and if it is B, then you can legally go down the road of the man who wants to marry a sheep.
If you want to have marriage added to the constitution as a right, maybe that is worth thinking about. I might even support that. It could turn out that I have a right to marry Jessica Simpson.
Even in Canada, where it was generally considered to be unconstitutional to deny marriage to same sex couples, the law had to redefine marriage before those "rights" could be fully realized.
Until July 20, 2005, the federal government had not yet passed a law redefining marriage to conform to recent provincial court decisions. Same-sex marriage in Canada
The debate is over, and the Republican base is breathing a huge sigh of relief. Sarah Palin didn't make a royal mess of the debate, something that a lot of us feared might happen after her disastrous sitdown with Katie Couric.
Yes, she benefited from the fact she didn't have to take follow-ups, and she benefited from low expectations. But she was tough and charming, and she held her own against an opponent with vastly more experience and who was on his game in his own right. She almost made me want to believe in a windfall profits tax.
This is precisely what I was hoping for. I like her personally—she's endearing, even with that accent—and we share some important beliefs. (Not all. I will cheer the day any presidential or VP candidate, Republican or Democrat, stands onstage in an important debate and calls out for marriage equality.) However inexperienced she might be, I don't want her to get the blame for taking the whole ticket down with her.
For the first 25 minutes, she was bore-sighted on that camera like she wanted it stuffed and mounted above her mantle.
And at t+25 minutes, she started to fall apart... and telegraphed it by looking away from the camera. Quite a reliable tell, when she was fumbling a question, trying to figure out which canned response would be close enough.
You know, It would have been far more entertaining (not to mention 100X more honest) if it were more like pro wrestling and someone had taken a folding chair to the face.
You do have a right to religious freedom and marriage is a religious institution. In the eyes of civil law, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman for the intent of procreation.
I seriously doubt that civil law mentions anything about "for the intent of procreation". Maybe some church documents do. I know I stood up for two hours as a groomsman at a Catholic wedding while the priest rambled on about how marriage was for the purpose of having children. I wanted to yell "Shut the **** up and ask them if they do!"
Do not attempt to circumvent the autocensor.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Cuddles
But law? Maybe I'm unclear on the concept of "civil law" but I'm not aware of any laws in the US, civil or otherwise, that make the procreation claim.
That's ludicrous. No two relationships are exactly the same. Some heterosexual marriages are not for the point of procreation. Some are impossible, as when post-reproductive aged people get married. Some marriages are for tax purposes. There are many reasons.
You have, or should have, the right to call a legally sanctioned union of two people a "marriage", regardless of the reasons for marriage. If a gay man can legally marry a gay woman for tax purposes, then it seems obscene to me that a homosexual cannot legally marry because they love each other. Again, I cannot believe you are seriously making this argument. Are you taking the mickey?
If it is A, it is scientifically not true and will lead back into court time after time and if it is B, then you can legally go down the road of the man who wants to marry a sheep.
A is ridiculous. A heterosexual couple can have sex in any kinky way they want and still be married. Marriage is not about the way you have sex. It is about commitment.
When you can find a sheep who can sign (or verbally agree to) a marriage agreement, then you might have a point. Until you can, this argument is total BS.
The Constitution suggests equality for all people. It has been modified several times, always in the direction of assuring that equality. In my opinion, it should be modified again to insure another kind of equality, because some people can't seem to grasp the idea of equality and need it spelled out for them.
B) Even in Canada, where it was generally considered to be unconstitutional to deny marriage to same sex couples, the law had to redefine marriage before those "rights" could be fully realized.
Yep. They had to bring the legal definition of marriage into sync with the commonly accepted (in Canada) definition of marriage. Laws can be changed. That's why we have legislators. Their job is, or should be, to adjust the laws to make society fair and workable.
Meh. I was watching the debate on a break (debate started at 3:00 pm for us) and switched to the Phillies/BrewCrew in time to see Shane Victorino hit his first career Grand Salami on a 1-2 pitch with two out to score the winning runs. Maui no ka oi!
(And if anyone ever says "nukular" in my immediate vicinity, I will banshee wail in a piercing and sustained manner until their eyeballs explode. That is the main reason I switched.)
I realize that some people do care, but they have to change the culture first before it's safe for politicians to follow. Politicians' top priority is getting elected and reelected.
Well, that's a cold comfort for the gays and lesbians who have to wait a few more decades--if ever--for the majority of America's moronic bigoted, bible-thumping, populace to catch up with the rest of us.
I can image back in the mid-20th century telling African-Americans, "Sorry, folks, but the white majority still think of you as their inferiors. You need to put off all this 'civil-rights' talk until they can learn to tolerate you. You don't want to ruin my chances at election, don't you?"
There are issues that are too damn important to leave to be left to the dimwitted mob or their power-hungry state house proxies. Gay marriage should be 100% legal in this country. If the Republicans/Conservatives/Jesus-Freaks don't like it they either learn to live with it, or (better yet) pack up their things and leave for a country that better suits their pea-brained religious views--like Iran. If they want to raise a ruckus then they can take it up with the solider with the assault rifle and the "shoot to kill" orders.
(And if anyone ever says "nukular" in my immediate vicinity, I will banshee wail in a piercing and sustained manner until their eyeballs explode. That is the main reason I switched.)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
