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.
(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.)
What I found amusing about the nukular issue is that she couldn't decide how to pronounce it. Sometimes nuclear, sometimes nukular. This made her sound underrehearsed, like she was flubbing her lines. Since the goal is to make it sound like you are actually responding to a question, not delivering prerehearsed lines, I thought it made her look worse than she would have if she had just said "nukular"
I heard Peggy Noonan, conservative writer, speak on this in an interview this morning. Paul W. Smith, local commentator and former occasional standin for Rush Limbaugh, asked if she reminded Peggy of Reagan. I was surprised when she not only said no, but expressed extreme annoyance at what she considered a stupid comparison.
I thought that Palin's attempts to take on the Ronald Reagan mantle, both in the "there you go again" and the "shining city on a hill" reference, fell flat and were borderline embarrassing. I'm no Reagan fan, but it cried for a Lloyd Benston "you're no Ronald Reagan".
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.
But it doesn't bother me much because I doubt this debate changed much, if anything. A temporary 2-3 point bump in the polls, a decline, and then an eventual Obama win ... barring any sort of exotic political meteorite that takes Obama down.
Saw this talking point during the debate - have no idea why the McCain campaign thinks this is a good message to hammer into the heads of undecided voters.
I (very!) briefly listened to EIB this morning and the Round Mound of Sound was complaining about CNN's bias toward Biden; how the commentators gave all the debate performance points to him. Perhaps Rush hadn't noticed that was the general consensus in the media (of course he knows).
I agree. Without Palin, Dan Quayle might have been forever enshrined as the dumbest VP to ever stumble onto a ticket. I foresee a huge future in Palin interviews, just to keep the comics happy. She's SNL's wet dream.
What ever happened to Lloyd Benson? Did he ever become VP to POTUS?
The idiot Quayle should have shot right back to Benson, "I take that as a compliment. Since I am neither a philanderer, drug addict, or dependant on my father to buy my wife's clothes," when Benson said, "You are no Jack Kennedy."
Palin held her own with the best debater the Dems have to offer. Perhaps the U.S. Senate is not the best place to find stellar debaters.
I thought you would have picked me saying that marriage is a religious institution (maybe was is more correct) than to try to say that marriage is a right. Show me in the constitution or bill of rights where I have a right to be married. You can only argue for equal treatment under (civil) law at this point which varies from state to state.
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.
Meh.. maybe you are right about no mention of procreation. Federal law (U.S. Code, Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 7) "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." - Law created in the 90's - 1996 IIRC. This is a more recent legal reaction, and not being able to find much actual info on civil law pertaining to marriage (just people opinions on such laws) I have to concede the point.
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.
I meant as it pertains to descrimination. You have to have two equal things with different treatment for different race, gender etc. to claim discrimination. This is where procreation comes in strongly. There is no way a same sex marriage can produce children without some outside source, adoption, surrogate, whatever. Pregnancy has been known to happen in people who were considered "post-reproductive." What's the next step, to say that homosexual couples have a "right" to adoption? Will "post-reproductive" people then get the "right" to adopt as well?
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?
This takes us back to the argument being about the right to call anything what you want to call it. What is wrong with civil union?
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.
Why not make it about love? Can we get any more ambiguous? If marriage is defined as commitment, I think maybe I'll marry my dog. My dog has 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.
Agreed, this is what I was saying. You have to argue for homosexual marriage as equal treatment under the law, since it is not spelled out in the Constitution.
If you are male and single and Jessica Simpson is female and single, you DO have the right to marry her. All you have to do is get her to agree.
No, if I have a right to marry Jessica Simpson, I will sue her for discrimination if she does not marry me.
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.
I'm not opposed to changing the laws to accept same sex marriage, but I'm not religious. Again, what is wrong with civil union? Two things bother me about this issue, one is why does it have to be called marriage if for all intent and purpose it gives the same treatment under the law to call it a civil union? The other issue is that there is no precedent to call seme sex marriage a right.
Uh... I think I've taken this thread off topic far enough. There' s probably a billion other threads on same sex marriage.
Palin's career has been going for a while. Where it will go long term is harder to predict. Might be able to make senator with alaska's fairly shallow tallent pool but without some serious opinion modification I can't see her makeing president or even a future VP run. She hasn't helped here case with various statements that will annoy parts of both the republican base and establishment.
Not according to the liberal media... like Fox News. Even those who are desperately Republican are damning her with faint praise. They give her points because "she held her own".
I can't remember where I heard it first, but it sums up the analysis of Palin's performance:
Palin's career has been going for a while. Where it will go long term is harder to predict. Might be able to make senator with alaska's fairly shallow tallent pool...
There is no way either side could get even a 20 point lead in this election.
Palin's career has been going for a while. Where it will go long term is harder to predict. Might be able to make senator with alaska's fairly shallow tallent pool but without some serious opinion modification I can't see her makeing president or even a future VP run. She hasn't helped here case with various statements that will annoy parts of both the republican base and establishment.
Given how polarised US politics has been over the last couple of decades it is remarkable Obama has a 7% lead. I would imagine the final result might be a little tighter than that. I read somewhere that the McCain see the current higher profile of Bush in relation to the financial difficulties as a drag on their campaign - not sure how accurate that is though.
What ever happened to Lloyd Benson? Did he ever become VP to POTUS?
The idiot Quayle should have shot right back to Benson, "I take that as a compliment. Since I am neither a philanderer, drug addict, or dependant on my father to buy my wife's clothes," when Benson said, "You are no Jack Kennedy."
Palin held her own with the best debater the Dems have to offer. Perhaps the U.S. Senate is not the best place to find stellar debaters.
Palin looked like she was rehearsing her lines against someone who has never been described as either an inspirational speaker or a good debater, and who was in serious danger of coming off as arrogant if he mauled her as hard as she deserved.
So yes, she managed to passably lose the debate against a lukewarm debater with both hands tied behind his back.
I see a bright career... as a bikini model.
P.S. I like that your response to that would have been to insult Kennedy. I guess we finally learned Alan Keyes forum nick, because no one else could have lost a debate that thoroughly.
Palin looked like she was rehearsing her lines against someone who has never been described as either an inspirational speaker or a good debater, and who was in serious danger of coming off as arrogant if he mauled her as hard as she deserved.
So yes, she managed to passably lose the debate against a lukewarm debater with both hands tied behind his back.
I see a bright career... as a bikini model.
P.S. I like that your response to that would have been to insult Kennedy. I guess we finally learned Alan Keyes forum nick, because no one else could have lost a debate that thoroughly.
I see. Biden didn't do as well as he could have because Palin is a female. He wasn't bothered by this supposed handicap when he debated Hillary. Oh wait. Maybe Hillary's pantsuit erased her gender. Or, "Say it ain't so Joe" kept looking at Palin in profile and got weak kneed. That I could believe.
It is fascinating how commenting on JFK's well known character problems is considered out of bounds, yet Benson propping up the myth of Camelot (that was debunked long before 1988) is Devilishly clever.
The idiot Quayle should have shot right back to Benson, "I take that as a compliment. Since I am neither a philanderer, drug addict, or dependant on my father to buy my wife's clothes," when Benson said, "You are no Jack Kennedy."
He could hardly do that, considering how Quayle had just finished comparing himself to Kennedy, hoping to gain "bipartisan" points by showing how much respect he had for a Democrat. That was the reason for Bentson's riposte.
And of course, Quayle also came from a family of wealth and power, so it would have not done well to try to portrey Kennedy as a rich brat.
He could hardly do that, considering how Quayle had just finished comparing himself to Kennedy, hoping to gain "bipartisan" points by showing how much respect he had for a Democrat. That was the reason for Bentson's riposte.
.
Huh? Quayle was hardly comparing himself to JFK other than to the amount of time both had spent in the Senate before being on a presidential ticket. Where did Quayle say he "respected" JFK? Even if you never saw this debate live, with the advent of youtube, there is no defense for mischaracterizing this exchange. So my riposte, while not in character for Quayle, would still be appropriate.
***.."I have far more experience than many others that sought the office of vice president of this country. I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency."..*** Quayle
Huh? Quayle was hardly comparing himself to JFK other than to the amount of time both had spent in the Senate before being on a presidential ticket. Where did Quayle say he "respected" JFK? Even if you never saw this debate live, with the advent of youtube, there is no defense for mischaracterizing this exchange. So my riposte, while not in character for Quayle, would still be appropriate.
Surely you jest. Quayle would hardly make this comparison if he was suggesting that Kennedy, with his lack of experience, was a bad president. You simply don't point out the similarities between yourself and someone you are about to insult. Your ripost not only would not have been in character for Quayle, it would have caused an audible gasp from the audience and a thorough excoriation in the press. It might have even lost GHW Bush the election.
I'm not going to defend Kennedy. He was not a good president. He nearly got us into a nuclear war, he did get us into Viet Nam and he had a limited grasp of policy. Had he survived, his administration might have been regarded as failed. That being said, it would have simply been suicide for Quayle to have attacked a dead president whose legacy was (undeservedly) magnified by his death. He might as well praise Hitler.
***.."I have far more experience than many others that sought the office of vice president of this country. I have as much experience in the Congress as Jack Kennedy did when he sought the presidency."..*** Quayle
Right. The implication being that Kennedy was a good president, even with less experience. Besides, denouncing an assassinated president, however justified, would not have done much for his political ambitions. He is quite fortunate that you were not his advisor. But then, I seriously doubt he would have taken you on as an advisor. He wasn't really a dumb person. He just didn't have much of a talent for public speaking.
I see. Biden didn't do as well as he could have because Palin is a female. He wasn't bothered by this supposed handicap when he debated Hillary. Oh wait. Maybe Hillary's pantsuit erased her gender. Or, "Say it ain't so Joe" kept looking at Palin in profile and got weak kneed. That I could believe.
Or maybe the only thing Palin has going for her is her helplessness. Being cruel to her is like kicking a puppy. Hillary has been accused of many things, but the moniker "puppy" is never going to be applied to her.
Now me, I can look at Palin sinking, and say "Well, she jumped in the water with concrete overshoes, and her swimming skill was pitiful at best" but most people feel sympathy when a mean nasty Biden shark starts taking chunks out of her - which is, frankly, what he's good at.
Biden just had to ignore her and let her sink on her own - which she's startlingly good at.
It is fascinating how commenting on JFK's well known character problems is considered out of bounds, yet Benson propping up the myth of Camelot (that was debunked long before 1988) is Devilishly clever.
You do know that the Camelot moniker wasn't because of JFK (one notes King Arthur was hardly the best role model ever). It was because of the people he gathered around him.
I stole this from Wikipedia: Enjoy.
The Kennedy Cabinet
OFFICE |NAME |TERM
President |John F. Kennedy |1961–1963
Vice President |Lyndon B. Johnson |1961–1963
State |Dean Rusk |1961–1963
Treasury |C. Douglas Dillon |1961–1963
Defense |Robert S. McNamara |1961–1963
Justice |Robert F. Kennedy |1961–1963
Postmaster General |J. Edward Day |1961–1963
|John A. Gronouski |1963
Interior |Stewart L. Udall |1961–1963
Agriculture |Orville L. Freeman |1961–1963
Commerce |Luther H. Hodges |1961–1963
Labor |Arthur J. Goldberg |1961–1962
|W. Willard Wirtz |1962–1963
HEW |Abraham A. Ribicoff |1961–1962
| Anthony J. Celebrezze |1962–1963
I thought you would have picked me saying that marriage is a religious institution (maybe was is more correct) than to try to say that marriage is a right. Show me in the constitution or bill of rights where I have a right to be married.
And this is exactly why Alexander Hamilton said that there shouldn't be a Bill of Rights at all: because if there is a bill saying that some things are rights, then there will always be ****s and ******s who hate freedom and who will pretend that everything not listed in the Bill of Rights are not rights.
But this is insane. The Constitution doesn't say that an individual can't do anything that's not protected in the Constitution, it says that the state can't do anything that's prohibited by the Constitution.
Since this is in the Election 2008 forum, I shall add something I heard someone say the other day: "If we elect Obama, at least we'll have a President who's read the Federalist Papers".
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.
