Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
"Your" is a grammar, not a spelling mistake.
VP Debate Thread
- Thread starter corplinx
- Start date
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Irregardless. Its true.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
y r u so mean 2 him
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Doesn't seem to parallel. Here we are talking about a linguistic issue. What word are we going to use for it. Assuming that a civil union has the same legal effects as a marriage.
You really prefer totalitarianism to democracy? You think people who don't agree with you should be shot? I think you are overreacting to something that is not really a big deal, and which is probably going to be resolved in a few more years. I expect there will be gay "marriage" in the near future, and getting everything but the word is pretty darn close.Achán hiNidráne
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,974
I really don't trust government in any form. But, I prefer a society that does the right thing without having to differ to the fickle, supersticious, and willfully ignorant whims lowest common denominator.
I didn't say that people I disagreed with should be shot. I said:
The Klan tried to raise a "rukus" when Blacks wanted the right to vote.
Tim McVeigh certainly raised a "rukus" in Oklahoma City.
Erich Rudolph raised a "rukus" at Olympic Park.
Our government should always be willing to use deadly force against those who would use violence to oppress others.
Tell that to a homosexual, please.
The "near future" isn't soon enough.
Last edited:
SezMe
post-pre-born
Then all women past menopause who get married are law-breakers.
ETA: Sorry, covered by others more eloquently than my post.
SezMe
post-pre-born
You're corny.
I don't because it is so fake. Why are the families up there? The people who deserve post-debate handshakes are the staff who did all the prep work. But are they anywhere to be found? Noooooooo. Just wives/husbands, kids, etc. People who are totally irrelevant.
rdaneel
Illuminator
Thanks for the replies, unfortunately, I've never seen Fargo, so that wasn't it.
I did however, figure it out. Martha Generic from Bobby's World.
If you look at the comments, I'm not the first to make the connection.
SnuggleSmacks
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 303
I thought Biden's response to gay marriage was pretty good, in that he clearly defined marriage as a religious issue and that the government was not in the business of redefining a religious designation.
That said he also explicitly stated that they are or should be Constitutionally guaranteed the same rights as any other couple. The first quote is in response to the specific question of supporting gay marriage as a follow up to the generalized question of agreeing with Alaska's policy of offering equal benefits to same sex partners. The following is part of Biden's answer to that first question. (taken directly from the transcript on the NYT website)
In this quote he does use the phrase "same-sex marriage", as there doesn't seem to be a phrase in the common lexicon to delineate a legal union from the religious institution (and not legally binding) marriage. I had really hoped that when Gwen Ifill asked specifically about supporting gay marriage that Biden would say yes. I'm disappointed that they are ducking that particular fight but it's a start in recognizing on a federal level that those rights exist and are not dependent on the individual states.
On the whole Palin was more coherent then I anticipated. She was coached almost too well; look in the camera, speak to the American people, when in doubt say one of these phrases. The winks were unnerving and she couldn't give a straight answer if you gave her a ruler.
Biden's strength lay in being able to tit for tat with many of the points she tried to make and was able to back up with specifics most of his points. He was also very good at hammering home a point without coming across as patronizing, sexist or overbearing. It was a good example of how to argue a specific without attacking the person (unless the person is McCain).
Biden for the win.
Boo
I agree with this. Biden was very specific regarding the exact inequalities he would like to change in gay unions. I understand completely why the gay community would like to hang on to the word "marriage" but I also understand why, in a predominately fundamentalist Christian nation, a politician might want to step back from the word. It's just semantics. As long as there are equal rights, which is what the Obama/Biden platform is supporting, I don't think the name of the union should matter. Speaking as someone who is technically still married, but only on paper, I would be for "Civil Unions" for heterosexuals...a union that is as easy to sever as it is to enter. Divorce is very expensive, even amongst couples who are completely amicable and have no children and agree on division of assets. It's ridiculous. I signed a paper to get married, the fee was something like $65 (or less, I don't remember) and severing that union should be just as easy. Yes, I had a wedding, and it was great, but the legal marriage was just a piece of paper which gave me all kinds of rights. Any two consenting adults should have access to that same set of rights, regardless of the name, and it seems to me that this is what Biden was saying.
As for Palin's performance, it was indeed very scripted, and you could hear a point about 20 or 25 minutes into it in which her voice began to shake. She dodged far too many questions, and made it too obvious that she was doing so. What kind of debate is it when you are allowed to choose your own subject to expound on INSTEAD of answering a question?? I thought it was a nuke-u-lar win for Biden.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
ruckus
n: the act of making a noisy disturbance
I would. Your reaction, which can be paraphrased as "I would rather give up democracy than compromise an inch, even if it's only over a word, and I would resort to extrajudicial killings to quell any 'ruckus' (a noisy disturbance)" is an overreaction. That's extremism.
These are your words:
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Wow. I thought Biden won, but I didn't expect everyone else to.
Huh? Biden looked directly at the camera a lot. He was very good at balancing his focus between the moderator, his opponent, and the audience. Watch some clips again. Every time he tells an anecdote or wants to drive a point home, he's focused squarely on the camera.
Go Phils!leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
By not winning, Palin lost. She had something to prove and did not prove it. She just showed that she had the kind of self-control that a TV personality is supposed to have. Good for a local channel sports babe, but not a recommendation for VP.
The graph of reactions from the test audience is even more significant. These were undecided Ohio voters and they were singularly unimpressed by the governor.
Most people have already made up their minds. I, for one was fully behind Obama from the moment Edwards bowed out. After the convention , most Democrats and a lot of independants were solidly for Obama. The undecided voters are the key, though.
Palin gave them no clear reason to vote for her. She got a nearly flat line at points. A lot of the time, she dropped below the middle of the graph. Rarely did she touch the top of the chart.
Uh-oh!
The graph of reactions from the test audience is even more significant. These were undecided Ohio voters and they were singularly unimpressed by the governor.
Most people have already made up their minds. I, for one was fully behind Obama from the moment Edwards bowed out. After the convention , most Democrats and a lot of independants were solidly for Obama. The undecided voters are the key, though.
Palin gave them no clear reason to vote for her. She got a nearly flat line at points. A lot of the time, she dropped below the middle of the graph. Rarely did she touch the top of the chart.
Uh-oh!
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
I agree. She did better than her interviews, but that wasn't nearly enough. She never came close to clearing the Presidential hurdle. I don't think she calmed anyone's misgivings about having her One Heartbeat Away.
Achán hiNidráne
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,974
Fine, it's "extremist." Ask me if I care.
Go ahead, ask me.
To paraphrase Goldwater, Extremism in the defense of atheists, sexual liberation, women's rights, and the separation of church and state is no vice. My anger and disgust is over more than just the difference between the words "civil unions" and "marriage." this goes a lot deeper into the creeping theocracy that has been growing like a cancer since the 80s.
I'm sick of talk. I'm sick of pointless debate. I'm sick of "compromise." I'm sick of trying to educate the willfully ignorant. We need change now.
HarryKeogh
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 11,319
Fine, it's "extremist." Ask me if I care.
Go ahead, ask me.
Do you care?
Achán hiNidráne
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,974
No.
FaisonMars
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 659
Sarah Palin, stop winking at me! I'm not interested!
Palin was trying to channel Reagan ("There you go again, Joe."), and she failed.
When she said, "I'm not going to answer your questions," I was hoping that Ifill would say something like, "I can't make you answer the questions, Gov. Palin, but I think these are questions that the American people deserve answers to."
Likewise, if Biden had wanted to land a good attack, in his closing statement he could have said something like, "If Palin were President, would she just change the question when the going gets tough? We need a leader who will face challenges head on... etc."
She also doesn't seem to know what "Achilles Heel" means. I was wondering if either Gwen or Biden would say... "uh, Gov. Palin, an Achilles Heel is a *weakness*, not a strength."
They were both trying to be main street and folksy (McCain I think took a hit for never mentioning the middle class in the first debate). Biden's attempts were annoying (Home Depot? Can't you hire assistants to do your hardware shopping for you?), but I think he came across as more genuine, whereas that area is supposed to be Palin's strong point.
Biden clearly came across as more knowledgeable about the issues... no one expected otherwise.
How, Palin didn't really have any Miss South Carolina moments, and since the expectations for her were so low, people who already like her are going to say that she knocked it out of the park, even though she did not have the same command of the facts and really didn't say much of substance.
Maybe Bush could get away with being an empty suit in 2000 when the economy was strong and people were disgusted with Clinton, but Palin can't get away with it in 2008.
Biden did the right thing by sticking to the issues and running out the clock. Even though it made the debate more boring for those of us who were hoping to see a train wreck, it was the safe play-- we're back where we were before the debate, which is a very good position for Obama.
Palin was trying to channel Reagan ("There you go again, Joe."), and she failed.
When she said, "I'm not going to answer your questions," I was hoping that Ifill would say something like, "I can't make you answer the questions, Gov. Palin, but I think these are questions that the American people deserve answers to."
Likewise, if Biden had wanted to land a good attack, in his closing statement he could have said something like, "If Palin were President, would she just change the question when the going gets tough? We need a leader who will face challenges head on... etc."
She also doesn't seem to know what "Achilles Heel" means. I was wondering if either Gwen or Biden would say... "uh, Gov. Palin, an Achilles Heel is a *weakness*, not a strength."
They were both trying to be main street and folksy (McCain I think took a hit for never mentioning the middle class in the first debate). Biden's attempts were annoying (Home Depot? Can't you hire assistants to do your hardware shopping for you?), but I think he came across as more genuine, whereas that area is supposed to be Palin's strong point.
Biden clearly came across as more knowledgeable about the issues... no one expected otherwise.
How, Palin didn't really have any Miss South Carolina moments, and since the expectations for her were so low, people who already like her are going to say that she knocked it out of the park, even though she did not have the same command of the facts and really didn't say much of substance.
Maybe Bush could get away with being an empty suit in 2000 when the economy was strong and people were disgusted with Clinton, but Palin can't get away with it in 2008.
Biden did the right thing by sticking to the issues and running out the clock. Even though it made the debate more boring for those of us who were hoping to see a train wreck, it was the safe play-- we're back where we were before the debate, which is a very good position for Obama.
Last edited:
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Depends who was being polled. With modern political organisations I suspect that is as close to a win as you are going to see.
Last edited:
Dragoonster
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,754
That, and Palin's claim that she and Todd were without health insurance made me wonder. I know Biden is one of the least wealthy Congressman, I think his FEC filing showed $150k or so in assets or on-hand money or something. I'm really curious what Palin's net worth is and what kind of hardships she actually faced. Due to bias my hunch is that their period without health care was maybe two months due to switching jobs or something, but I dunno.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
From what I understand there was a period when palin was in politics and her huspand had to leave his job due to conflict of interest issues resulting in money being rather tight.