"The Dems" didn't reject her. Obama did.
If the Dem leadership really wanted to press the issue they could have. In any case, Clinton isn't on the ticket.
Trooper-gate? Fired for insubordination. It's also not a serious election-busting skeleton like catching her in an orgy or smoking meth.
No teleprompter in interviews :dozey:That's why I didn't say 'interviews'. She's way out of her element on TV interviews.
"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"This is not the same question as 'Should we finish what we started in Iraq', which will give very different numbers.
I also see that the poll number have widen since the debate.
I don't know that it was the debate that did it, because I don't think McCain did poorly. I think the banking crisis is making people say to themselves 'this happened on Bush's watch, McCain's a Republican, I don't want another Republican in office'. I'd like to see some study/poll asking if the debate or the banking crisis had more of an influence on the poll change.
Palin saying something stupid will not shock me either.If the past week has been any indication, I won't be shocked either.
Does anyone think either of them will do really well, or do we expect both of them to say something really stupid? I'm leaning more to the 'stupid' expectation.
Watch the polls. Aproximately 50% do agree with the Iraq war. I may not agree with the original intell, but I absolutely agree that it was the right thing to do.
Why are people ignoring the polls? McCain and Barrack are only seperated by the margin of error. Estimated 50% for McCain and 50% for Barrack.
The two big words there are 'estimated' and 'approximately'. They indicate that it's not a dead split - and if the polls are so important, why didn't you show them to us?
If the Dem leadership really wanted to press the issue they could have. In any case, Clinton isn't on the ticket.So they're guilty because they were complicit with his decision (it being his decision and all)? I'm having a great deal of difficulty making sense of this argument, Jae.
Fired for insubordination."Innocent until proven guilty" would have been much more persuasive. Considering that she's stonewalling the investigation (after agreeing to cooperate), I don't see how you can determine the outcome.
It's also not a serious election-busting skeleton like catching her in an orgy or smoking meth.Interestingly, some of us consider abuse of power and cronyism more important than private issues or a prior drug conviction.
That's why I didn't say 'interviews'. She's way out of her element on TV interviews. Yep, because she doesn't have a teleprompter. :)
If I have two instances of someone speaking and one is favorable and the other is not and one of the main variables is the presence of a teleprompter, I'm going to begin making some very broad assumptions about said person's ability to speak "articulately".
The two big words there are 'estimated' and 'approximately'. They indicate that it's not a dead split - and if the polls are so important, why didn't you show them to us? Watch the evening news.
That, and even Approximate numbers give ideas as to where the race is currently leaning. No poll is going to be 100% accurate, that's just impossible since the survey group size is going to have to be ~300M, not the usual ~1000-2000 crap the media shoves down our throats as "fact".
So, just as long as its disclaimered as an Estimate, I'll take it as an estimate for where the race is at... after all, its the best we can do so far.
The two big words there are 'estimated' and 'approximately'. They indicate that it's not a dead split - and if the polls are so important, why didn't you show them to us? First I personally don't think polls are that important and a poll that involves a question of race is questionable because people may lie so they do not appear racist. That should be taken into account by the margin of error, but I do not know how idealist those that took the statistics were. Therefore, I take all polls, especially those in this Presidential election with a grain of salt. I would say I only trust the election count, but since the election of 2000, I know that is flawed too.
Gallup 09/28/2008 - Obama 50% to McCain 42% (
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110740/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Moves-50-42-Lead.aspx)
Real Clear Politics - Poll Averages 9/21/2008 - 9/28/2008 (
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/)
PollingReport.com (
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm)
Watch the evening news.
As much as i'd like to, I'm not on the same continent.
Watch the evening news.
No.
And polls are not important.:lol:
No.
And polls are not important.:lol: Bad kitty! :lol:
You are most likely right though.
In my opinion if you actually knew the facts and had been following things with sources other than the "mainstream media" McCain clearly won, but he didn't utilize several opportunities to blow Obama out of the water.
Like the Fact the earmark for ACORN being in the bailout bill.
In my opinion if you actually knew the facts and had been following things with sources other than the "mainstream media" McCain clearly won, but he didn't utilize several opportunities to blow Obama out of the water.. So Gallop (
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110779/Debate-Watchers-Give-Obama-Edge-Over-McCain.aspx) is the “mainstream media”? :¬:
Pundits gave the edge to McCain in terms of points won. The average person watching thought Obama won, and there are more 'average people' than pundits voting.
Palin started off strong, but quickly began to lose the debate, IMHO. She eventually stopped making convincing counter arguemnts, whilst Biden seemed very savvy with knowledge on all of the topics... I heard 'I beleive' and 'I think' and and many imperatives about Mccain from Palin. Palin's 'energy independence' and 'mccain knows how to win a war' and 'Maverick blah blah blah' statements didn't prove anything. Biden completely explained his positions and backed them all up quite well. Also, at the end, it turns out Biden knew what the VP did and Palin misunderstood what powers that position would give her.
If only we could have had Biden as our Democratic POTUS Candidate... He would make a pretty good POTUS. Much better than Obama.
I asked my parents who they like the best, and they, being very conservative republicans, admitted that they like Joe Biden the best... :D
Maybe they will vote for Obama this year...
I think they both did well. Palin and Biden both did what it was suggested they do. Biden was to not concentrate on Palin. Keep the focus on McCain and his "failed Bush policies" and to talk about Obama and his plan.
And Sarah to well be the Sarah people saw during the 2006 Alaskan governor election. At least that's what I've heard.
Now there has been some speculation about Biden saying some factually incorrect statements. I think we need to get the VP candidates' statements and compare with facts. Maybe something from fact checker.
But all in all I did not see any big blunders from either that would appear on you tube the next day. They both got done what they were suggested to do, they both seemed relaxed, and I think it went quite well.
Now there has been some speculation about Biden saying some factually incorrect statements. I think we need to get the VP candidates' statements and compare with facts. Maybe something from fact checker.
They seem to have gotten this one out rather quick. :)
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html)
Personally I thought the VP debates were somewhat uneventful (in a watching a car race and no accidents kind of way :xp: ). Though I do agree that it went quite smoothly. Over all, not bad, it's just unfortunate this is the only one for VP's. :indif:
I recall some funny parts of the debate...
Biden: Charact- char char character act characterization.
Palin: Soccer moms (blah blah blah)
Palin: My kids get extra credit for watching this debate
Oh, and the times when Biden smiled really big a whole lot and sometimes laughed as he became more and more aggravated with Palin's weak arguements...
Stewart and Colbert are going to love making a show out of those things today...
They seem to have gotten this one out rather quick. :)
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html)
Personally I thought the VP debates were somewhat uneventful (in a watching a car race and no accidents kind of way :xp: ). Though I do agree that it went quite smoothly. Over all, not bad, it's just unfortunate this is the only one for VP's. :indif:
Thank you. I'll have to check that link o꺳ut. But yeah it went well. Yeah like you've said I wish there were more VP debates. Even Sarah at the end said she enjoyed it and wished they could have more debates.
I do have a complaint about both Biden and Palin though. Is it just me or did Biden have plastic surgery on his upper eye lids? I mean looking down he looked normal, but when he was looking into the camera he looked like he had cat eyes. lol. Not trying to be a superficial guy, it's just did anyone else notice the top lids like I did?
Also Sarah needed to push the hair out of her face. Of course there is the other side that's going to say that hair in the face is an appealing look. I respectfully disagree. lol.
I watched the debate in its entirety, and Governor Palin hit it out of the park.
First Senator Biden said some things that were not only indisputably factually incorrect, but some things are things he has absolutely no excuse in messing up.
Such as when he said the Executive branch is Article I of the Constitution, when it is Article II that is the Executive Branch. Article I is the Legislative branch ie the House and the Senate.
He also lied about votes that Obama, McCain, and himself have made. Including votes on supporting the troops, votes on taxes, etc.
Senator Joe Biden and Senator Barack Obama voted for raising taxes on families earning $42,000 dollars a year, while Senator McCain voted against it. Senator Biden tried to paint a different picture but the facts are the facts.
Governor Palin ran circles around around him the entire debate, even with the moderator actively trying to throw the debate to Senator Biden. Did anyone else catch Senator Biden giving the moderator hand signals to cut Governor Palin off and give him extra rebuttals. He was also making faces, the whole nine yards.
You could tell that the moderator was not impartial (putting it mildly) and despite that Governor Palin still won the debate handily.
ChAiNz have a good source in my opinion in what both of the VPs either lied(Biden) or made a mistake on (Palin).
If I may I'l like to give reference to it again:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html)
I agree she did real wel in her speach for someone who hasn't done this for a long time like Biden. I think that says something great about her that she can match him and in some areas correct Biden on where he was wrong.
ChAiNz have a good source in my opinion in what both of the VPs either lied(Biden) or made a mistake on (Palin).
If I may I'l like to give reference to it again:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html)
I agree she did real wel in her speach for someone who hasn't done this for a long time like Biden. I think that says something great about her that she can match him and in some areas correct Biden on where he was wrong.
Correction: Okay didn't read through the entirety, apparently that tax thing was for individuals making $42,000 a year.
Fact Check says McCain didn't support legislation for more oversight until the crisis was well underway and that isn't true.
Senator McCain supported a bill in 2005-2006 that would have fixed this, if they are going after the second bill fine, but he was calling for reform long ago.
Correction: Okay didn't read through the entirety, apparently that tax thing was for individuals making $42,000 a year.
Fact Check says McCain didn't support legislation for more oversight until the crisis was well underway and that isn't true.
Senator McCain supported a bill in 2005-2006 that would have fixed this, if they are going after the second bill fine, but he was calling for reform long ago.
Alight then. If Fact Checker is wrong, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they an un biased fact producing source? But if they are wrong do you have a fact source that shows the candidates comments with comparison to facts?
Alight then. If Fact Checker is wrong, and correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they an un biased fact producing source? But if they are wrong do you have a fact source that shows the candidates comments with comparison to facts?
They can make mistakes you know, but fact is there was 1 bill the President tried to have pushed through in 2003.
Then there was the bill in 2005-2006 which McCain publically on the Senate floor spoke in favor of about this being necessary.
Then there was the 2007 bill that McCain was supporting and in that case Obama was taking money from the same banks that McCain was pushing to regulate.
They can make mistakes you know, but fact is there was 1 bill the President tried to have pushed through in 2003.
Then there was the bill in 2005-2006 which McCain publically on the Senate floor spoke in favor of about this being necessary.
Then there was the 2007 bill that McCain was supporting and in that case Obama was taking money from the same banks that McCain was pushing to regulate.
Listen, I believe you. But for the benefit of everyone here and also if Fact Checker is wrong I'd like to have a better source about which candidate was factully wrong on what. Meaning do you have a source, as in a link please? Also if Fact Checker was incorrect, are they not supposed to be an un biased fact producing site?
They can make mistakes you know, but fact is there was 1 bill the President tried to have pushed through in 2003.
Then there was the bill in 2005-2006 which McCain publically on the Senate floor spoke in favor of about this being necessary.
Then there was the 2007 bill that McCain was supporting and in that case Obama was taking money from the same banks that McCain was pushing to regulate.
By all means, I welcome any and all fact-checking services... but I'm more in tune to believe something with viable sources.
"the bill", "2005-2006 bill" and " 2007 bill" = :words: Specifics please.
I don't discount what you're saying, but at least I can find source links with FactCheck :)
Here's another site other may find of interest. :)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/)
However I can't really ascertain how legitimate it is since they also take in user articles/submissions :giveup: If anyone else has any experience with the site, feedback would be welcome. :)
Listen, I believe you. But for the benefit of everyone here and also if Fact Checker is wrong I'd like to have a better source about which candidate was factully wrong on what. Meaning do you have a source, as in a link please? Also if Fact Checker was incorrect, are they not supposed to be an un biased fact producing site?
That's really hard to find these days, I can't think of anyone that is unbiased really. However, I'd find the conservative leaning sources to be better at actually telling the truth.
NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, Associated Press, Reuters, my home Newspaper, New York Times, ABC, Newsweek, etc. all are actively supporting Barack Obama.
Hell my home newspaper has actually outright lied on at least one story to in order to explain why Obama did poorly in the Saddleback showdown.
Conservative Sources: Fox News, Washington Post, a few other smalltime papers.
I'm not including commentators, but you see the mismatch.
Concerning the Bill:
Letter to the Editor:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/23/mccain-was-warned-financial-debacle/)
Will try to find some other sources, there were a few on you tube but they were deleted.
Some sources that are quoting McCain I had some others but need to hunt them down.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mccain-co-sponsored-reforms-fannie-freddie)
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/democrats-blocked-financial-reforms-that-mccain-and-gop-proposed-in-2005/)
By all means, I welcome any and all fact-checking services... but I'm more in tune to believe something with viable sources.
"the bill", "2005-2006 bill" and " 2007 bill" = :words: Specifics please.
I don't discount what you're saying, but at least I can find source links with FactCheck :)
Here's another site other may find of interest. :)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/)
However I can't really ascertain how legitimate it is since they also take in user articles/submissions :giveup: If anyone else has any experience with the site, feedback would be welcome. :)
I agree. I did the same thing. I'd make comments and not back them up with facts when I said such and such is a fact. Oh by the way if you guys didn't see it I did my source finally on the Universal Health Care topic. Check it out if you want to see the comparison articles.
Thanks ChAiNz for the source plug.
That's really hard to find these days, I can't think of anyone that is unbiased really. However, I'd find the conservative leaning sources to be better at actually telling the truth.
NBC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, Associated Press, Reuters, my home Newspaper, New York Times, ABC, Newsweek, etc. all are actively supporting Barack Obama.
Hell my home newspaper has actually outright lied on at least one story to in order to explain why Obama did poorly in the Saddleback showdown.
Conservative Sources: Fox News, Washington Post, a few other smalltime papers.
I'm not including commentators, but you see the mismatch.
Concerning the Bill:
Letter to the Editor:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/sep/23/mccain-was-warned-financial-debacle/)
Will try to find some other sources, there were a few on you tube but they were deleted.
Some sources that are quoting McCain I had some others but need to hunt them down.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mccain-co-sponsored-reforms-fannie-freddie)
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/09/16/democrats-blocked-financial-reforms-that-mccain-and-gop-proposed-in-2005/)
Good you've now given your source. That's all we wanted. Yeah these days even credible sources can be biased. It's a shame. But also understandable. It's hard for people to not interject their views they believe in so to the core. So in the end all you can do is give your source and let people decide what they think is right. People will say that source is biased, wrong, spin it, or take things out of context. So again you simply have to let others make their own minds up.
Yeah, I also had a source that actually had the actual bill in question and am still trying to find it.
Thank you for taking the time to search/post some sources :) - Cz
I think it is a telling sign of how abysmally low the bar was set for Sarah Palin when anyone can say something like 'She hit it out of the park'.
Perhaps we were watching different debates, but I saw a woman who had memorized less than half a dozen talking points and absolutely refused to stray from them no matter the question at hand. The one time she did talk outside of her main points was when the topic of gay marriage came up, and she was visibly out of her element. She was nervous, edgy, and talked in circles until she could get back to talking about energy or taxes.
She also came across as exceptionally fake. Her smirk and cutsie attitude never wavered, even in the face of Joe Biden's extremely humanizing and meaningful "I understand" portion of the debate. After him nearly breaking into tears on stage recounting the painful loss of family Palin responded with more chipper "Maverick" talk, not the least beat empathetic to what was by FAR the most emotional and humanizing moment in the entire debate.
Sarah Palin proved that she is able to recite material. That is not an important quality for a Vice President. Joe Biden knew more about everything and was able to answer both hers and the moderators questions while she admitted in the opening of the debate that she had decided on her own format for the debate. ("I talk about whatever I want to talk about. WEEEEEE"). I am afraid that since a great number of people are more interested in style over substance they will be swayed by her folksie snarky demeanor, but I for one have had enough of leadership who I can 'really identify with'.
I think it is a telling sign of how abysmally low the bar was set for Sarah Palin when anyone can say something like 'She hit it out of the park'.
ET Warrior]Perhaps we were watching different debates
No. I simply believe we are biased in who we think won and who we were rooting for regardless. They say that statement because she was considered the underdog in this debate. And I think she did rneal well against a guy who has a heck of a lot more Washington experience than her.
I saw a woman who had memorized less than half a dozen talking points and absolutely refused to stray from them no matter the question at hand.
All candidates during debates have talking points memorized. Even Biden did. There is strategy in that. And your right it is bette when a candidate speaks more from the heart rather than from memorized statements. But she did not stick with them regarless of the question as you said. Maybe we were watching two different debates because I saw many times when she'd use her own words. So did Biden.
The one time she did talk outside of her main points was when the topic of gay marriage came up, and she was visibly out of her element. She was nervous, edgy, and talked in circles until she could get back to talking about energy or taxes.
I'll have to look back at the video sometime, but if she was nervous during that time it must have been the only time. I think she seemed relaxed and had good combacks. She would go back to a prevous topic when she wanted to rebut Biden and correct them. And I think she did it very well. And at the end she was so chipper and upbeat and even wanted and said she wished there could've been more of these VP debates soon. She had good zingers and I thought that helped her to look more real and down to earth.
She also came across as exceptionally fake. Her smirk and cutsie attitude never wavered, even in the face of Joe Biden's extremely humanizing and meaningful "I understand" portion of the debate. After him nearly breaking into tears on stage recounting the painful loss of family Palin responded with more chipper "Maverick" talk, not the least beat empathetic to what was by FAR the most emotional and humanizing moment in the entire debate.
lol. Well thanks ET for your spin on it.
Like I said I believe they had both of their talking points down, neither seemed nervous, and they both looked like they had a good time.
I didn't realize Biden normally makes faces at people.
I didn't realize Biden normally makes faces at people.
It could also be the fact he's had plastic surgery on his top eye lids that makes him look like he's making faces. I mean he when looking at the camera looks either like cat eyes or a little like a Klingon. lol.
..little like a Klingon. lol.
well we all wanted somebody tough in the Oval Office, you can't get much tougher than a Kinglon.
well we all wanted somebody tough in the Oval Office, you can't get much tougher than a Kinglon.
They're still finding gaffs made by Biden.
They're still finding gaffs made by Biden.
When you have a source please provide them.
well we all wanted somebody tough in the Oval Office, you can't get much tougher than a Kinglon.
I said or a cat's eyes, but I can't be sure. I should rephrase my statement about klingon eyes. I mean he has the klingon eyes only. No ridges, muscles, hair lol, and has droopy baggy lower lids. Not a very scary klingon if you ask me. More like a old klingon with massive hair loss. Interesting to find a star wars guy who likes trek too. I do too. We both seem to have a contradiction in comon.
Here is something I'm looking for another source:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2154)
Here is something I'm looking for another source:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2154rightpundits.com) I wonder if that's a biased source I mean they certainly do look reputable just going by the URL and the shoddy site design.
rightpundits.com I wonder if that's a biased source I mean they certainly do look reputable just going by the URL and the shoddy site design.
Well someone said fact checker was wrong on Biden, so again like I've said facts can be spun, credited/discredited, taken out of context, and said is biased. So again I said it's just what you think is true and right.
rightpundits.com I wonder if that's a biased source I mean they certainly do look reputable just going by the URL and the shoddy site design.
And the mainstream media is any better, hell the National Enquirer has has higher standard when it comes to sources than the New York Times when it comes to political candidates.
And the mainstream media is any better, hell the National Enquirer has has higher standard when it comes to sources than the New York Times when it comes to political candidates.
I don't post here in Kavar's anymore, but I'm pretty sure that you're completely wrong.
As my friend just told me, "The only interest the National Enquirer would have in the political candidates is if one of them is pregnant with an alien child. My money is on McCain."
Of course you need high standard sources for such an important story. :rolleyes:
I don't post here in Kavar's anymore, but I'm pretty sure that you're completely wrong.
As my friend just told me, "The only interest the National Enquirer would have in the political candidates is if one of them is pregnant with an alien child. My money is on McCain."
Of course you need high standard sources for such an important story. :rolleyes:
Actually, the argument is based off an interview with the man that broke the story about Edward's affair with that woman. He was commenting on the bogus story that the New York Times posted on the front cover about Senator John McCain.
The man said that he'd had been fired if he'd had printed something like that with such lousy sources.
Hey guys I found the first interview they had with Palin after the VP debate. I think that since this interview has to do with how she did the night before and her answering some questions, I thought I'd post this for the topic:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=camren+interviews+palin&search_type=&aq=f)
Lets see, Biden's been in politics almost the entire time that Palin's been alive, so for her to hold her own against him is a pretty big feat(yes I know it's an exaggeration). She came off as down home country. Biden came off as a politician(for the most part, but I think he started getting comfy around Palin and became more home townish as the debate went on...)
Haha I really think that for the most part America is really pitting this race as Obama versus Palin. McCain and Biden seem to be along for their ride....
Actually, the argument is based off an interview with the man that broke the story about Edward's affair with that woman. He was commenting on the bogus story that the New York Times posted on the front cover about Senator John McCain.
The man said that he'd had been fired if he'd had printed something like that with such lousy sources.
Cuz the Enquirer has better sources. :xp:
Well someone said fact checker was wrong on Biden, so again like I've said facts can be spun, credited/discredited, taken out of context, and said is biased. So again I said it's just what you think is true and right.No. Facts are facts, that's why they're called facts, otherwise they'd be called opinions.
Cuz the Enquirer has better sources. :xp:
When it comes to things like affairs and political scandals, they tend to do a better job than the NYT.... at least when the person happens to be a republican.... sorry, the NYT is quick to blast republicans, but seems to have some difficulty when a Democrat is involved.
No. Facts are facts, that's why they're called facts, otherwise they'd be called opinions.
Facts come from sources. And those sources though they say they are not biased sometimes they are. Plus facts can be spun, half truths can be given, it can be manipulated. So like I keep saying it simply depends on who and what you think is a credible source. It also cand depend on what fits your way of thinking in your opinion.
Lots of posts about Palin-Biden debate were moved from the VP moderator's conflict of interest (
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192672) thread to this one. Carry on. :)
If John McCain is so good at working at cutting spending why didn’t he do that when the Republican had control of Congress and the Presidency?
I believe he needs to remove his rose color glasses, they don’t suite his former maverick status and the American people are not that stupid. Well maybe they are not that stupid.:(
mimartin he's been going after his own party too, Tom DeLay was kicked out of the United States Senate due to an investigation McCain headed up.
He also called for Donald Rumsfeld to resign all the way back in 2004, and McCain was the one whom advocated the surge saying we didn't have enough people there and it was going to go to hell in a hand-basket. He's flat out accused the President (a member of his own party) of mismanagement.
His campaign was considered to be dead back in 2007 because of his taking a stand.
Most people know that, hell the media told people about it up till McCain won the Republican primary. Now the "mainstream" press is trying to say he's a Bush clone.
I sincerely, doubt most people will be dumb enough to believe he's just another Bush term.