VP Debate: Biden vs. Palin... Pt. 2, The Aftermath

In the French media?! THAT'S JUST AS BAD!

I actually looked it up to see if it was right since it didn't sound like something too far-fetched, but I didn't see it. Too bad because bosniaks is awesome as a gaffe.
 
[quote name='SpazX']In the French media?! THAT'S JUST AS BAD!

I actually looked it up to see if it was right since it didn't sound like something too far-fetched, but I didn't see it. Too bad because bosniaks is awesome as a gaff.[/quote]

i didn't know how to word it. was basically saying.. when she was living in france Bosnians were referred to as Bosniaks... unlike here where the media refers to them as Bosnians.

But I agree. once he said it. i turned to my wife and said.. Bosniaks..i like it
 
[quote name='Ecofreak']An inventive poster over at Daily Kos made this highly accurate flow chart detailing Gov. Palin's thought process last night
[/QUOTE]

Saw this on Fark. It's really sad how accurate it is.
 
You know, if I could ask Sarah Palin one thing, it would be "why do you feel that with a 1 year old with downs(I think), a son leaving for Iraq and a 17 year old daughter who is pregnant by someone who want nothing to do with the baby, that pursuing the job of vice-president is where you feel your focus should be?". Her family needs her support now more than ever and if she wins, they'll get pawned off to the aides or to nannies. If I was in her situation I know I wouldn't be running for the White House.
 
[quote name='BlueSwim']You know, if I could ask Sarah Palin one thing, it would be "why do you feel that with a 1 year old with downs(I think), a son leaving for Iraq and a 17 year old daughter who is pregnant by someone who want nothing to do with the baby, that pursuing the job of vice-president is where you feel your focus should be?". Her family needs her support now more than ever and if she wins, they'll get pawned off to the aides or to nannies. If I was in her situation I know I wouldn't be running for the White House.[/QUOTE]

That's one of the very few good criticisms I've read about her on here.

My guess is she, along with a lot of people, almost look at it as a calling. I'm not sure, really, why people never have that concern with males in politics though.
 
Because mothers are nurturers plain and simple. It's not sexist to say that a mother's place is around her newborn children. Again, I'm not against it if the kids are old enough to fend for themselves. People don't mind men with babies in positions of authority because they don't have to deal with a crying baby being breastfed during a meeting or someone ducking out for a while so they can pump. Men usually don't get or need special considerations to do their job regardless if they have kids or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='BlueSwim']You know, if I could ask Sarah Palin one thing, it would be "why do you feel that with a 1 year old with downs(I think), a son leaving for Iraq and a 17 year old daughter who is pregnant by someone who want nothing to do with the baby, that pursuing the job of vice-president is where you feel your focus should be?". Her family needs her support now more than ever and if she wins, they'll get pawned off to the aides or to nannies. If I was in her situation I know I wouldn't be running for the White House.[/QUOTE]

They were already been pawned off to aides and nannies, like, 5 weeks ago, I'm sure.
 
But she was sure to get off the plane in St. Louis holding the baby. Todd wasn't holding anything but she absolutely made sure she had the baby even though it meant she almost fell down the stairs.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']They were already been pawned off to aides and nannies, like, 5 weeks ago, I'm sure.[/QUOTE]

This is true. Track Palin got sidetracked and is actually chained to my bed naked with a bottle of viagra.

I'm sorry Mrs Palin (ooooooh!!) I am FO REAAAAALL. /outkast
 
[quote name='depascal22']But she was sure to get off the plane in St. Louis holding the baby. Todd wasn't holding anything but she absolutely made sure she had the baby even though it meant she almost fell down the stairs.[/QUOTE]

Also notice she immediately held the baby after the debate was over. Trying to get some brownie points with women voters and people who sympathize with her dumb ass. Her husband should have quit his job to help the children during the campaign, and especially so if god forbid McCain wins. But she's so rightwing nutjob that I bet she doesn't even realize that there's a lot of men who are stay-at-home fathers. She probably doesn't even know stay-at-home fathers exist.
 
We all know that she'll see the baby for about five minutes tops. Kids with Down's already have so many problems but I really do think that kid won't know who his mom is.
 
Yeah I feel so fucking bad for that poor baby. He may as well have been aborted since it's not like he exists to his mother anyway, other than as a political tool.
 
I don't know if anyone posted this yet, but it gave me a laugh.

2eg5ox4.jpg
 
It's like she didn't care because she's rich. Look at anyone else with a mentally disabled kid and they're emotional wrecks. Look at her though. She's calm, cool, and, collected. It's like she bought a dog or something.
 
[quote name='depascal22']He wasn't talking about religious groups though. Didn't he say Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks? Shouldn't it be Bosnians in that context?[/QUOTE]
Ethnic groups: Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks
Nationalities: Serbians, Croatians, Bosnians

A Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian is a citizen of Bosnia/Serbia/Croatia regardless of ethnicity, while a Bosniak/Serb/Croat is a member of that ethnic group regardless of his country.

While Bosnian is often used for both, Bosniak refers specifically to the ethnic group and not the nationality. Which was the correct use in the context that Biden was using it in.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Ethnic groups: Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks
Nationalities: Serbians, Croatians, Bosnians

A Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian is a citizen of Bosnia/Serbia/Croatia regardless of ethnicity, while a Bosniak/Serb/Croat is a member of that ethnic group regardless of his country.

While Bosnian is often used for both, Bosniak refers specifically to the ethnic group and not the nationality. Which was the correct use in the context that Biden was using it in.[/quote]

I love how the one gaffe you could pick up on Biden actually wasn't a gaffe at all. In terms of playing to the audience, it's like his only weakness is being too intelligent about the issues (who am I kidding, this is eternally the biggest weakness of the Democrats)
 
[quote name='camoor']it's like his only weakness is being too intelligent about the issues (who am I kidding, this is eternally the biggest weakness of the Democrats)[/QUOTE]

This.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']Fark reposted one of the most epic pwnings in history to show what Biden should have done last night. Of course he couldn't do this because he'd be branded as "mean" and "sexist." And Quayle sounds suspiciously like Palin did last night. I also love how the crowd goes motherfucking wild when Bentsen says it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRCWbFFRpnY[/QUOTE]

How much did epic pwnings help their candidacy?
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Epic pwnage you say?[/quote]

Reagan was a master with words, I doubt you'd find many who would disagree with you, liberal or conservative.

Though at that point Reagan could've probably taken a shit on the podium and walked off and he still would've won :p.
 
When she took the stage Thursday night here at Washington University for the vice presidential debate, Sarah Six-Pack all but popped open a cold one. Wearing a glittery flag pin on her jacket, she blew a kiss toward the audience. She gave a wave that Tina Fey would probably describe as adorable. Then she regarded her Democratic foe, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"Nice to meet you," Palin told Joe Biden. "Hey, can I call you Joe?"
"You can call me Joe," the senator obliged.
"Okay, thanks," she said brightly.
"Thank you," Biden replied.
"Thank you," she told him again. "Thank you, Gwen," she told moderator Gwen Ifill. "Thank you, thank you, thank you," she told nobody in particular.

It was going to be a long evening.
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../10/02/AR2008100204250.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

:lol::applause:

This guy NAILS it. Read the whole article!
 
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']Bringing up stuff like this will only make you the Johnny Buzzkill of this thread.[/QUOTE]

Evidently not, since none of the Obama supporters here have the balls to respond, apparently.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Evidently not, since none of the Obama supporters here have the balls to respond, apparently.[/quote]

Alright, fine, I'm bored.

[quote name='elprincipe']1. When was Hezbollah kicked out of Lebanon by the U.S. and France?[/quote]

fuck if I know, they probably weren't.

[quote name='elprincipe']2. Do you think it is a good idea to put U.S. troops into Darfur?[/quote]

Only if it would really work. Most of what he talked about was a no-fly zone, working with NATO, and helicopters. Palin didn't seem to disagree anyway.

[quote name='elprincipe']3. Since when was Obama NOT going to raise the capital gains tax?[/quote]

Who said he wasn't? All Biden talked about was for people making under $250k, which won't have it raised.

[quote name='elprincipe']4. How can your response be out of context when your entire answer to a complete question is what is in question?[/quote]

I dunno what he was thinking, but the Obama/Biden ticket supports clean coal regardless.

[quote name='elprincipe']5. Explain how it is not, still, after all these years, an incredibly lame excuse to say you voted for the authority to go to war on the expectation it would not be used.[/quote]

Pretty lame, though Biden was probably one of the more critical who ended up voting for it anyway.

[quote name='elprincipe']Palin had big problems in terms of not answering questions (although all candidates do this in debates) and speaking too much in general terms, but Biden was far more inaccurate.[/quote]

Really? Far more inaccurate?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']How much did epic pwnings help their candidacy?[/QUOTE]

I didn't say anything regarding that. I'm just saying it was awesome.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Alright, fine, I'm bored.

fuck if I know, they probably weren't.

Only if it would really work. Most of what he talked about was a no-fly zone, working with NATO, and helicopters. Palin didn't seem to disagree anyway.

Who said he wasn't? All Biden talked about was for people making under $250k, which won't have it raised.

I dunno what he was thinking, but the Obama/Biden ticket supports clean coal regardless.

Pretty lame, though Biden was probably one of the more critical who ended up voting for it anyway.

Really? Far more inaccurate?[/quote]

Income tax != Captial Gains tax.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Indeed, that is true. Though I don't know what you're getting at. All of the tax raises are only for those making over $250k (well for individuals it's $200,000).

You can look at it if you'd like:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf[/QUOTE]

Of course, that's direct taxation through income tax. And it's true that Obama won't directly increase taxation for the middle class.

Most businesses will end up paying more tax. Most businesses don't have huge piles of money sitting in their closet in case taxes are raised. For every dollar you raise tax on a business is a dollar more they will charge for their product, or deduct from payroll.

Also, "phasing out" the Bush tax cuts will increase the taxes for a family making 31-45k by 13%, which he has said he plans to allow.

So it's all rather slick.
Will Obama enact legislation to directly increase taxation on the middle class taxes? No.
Will he substantially raise taxes on the Americans creating the most jobs? Yes.

So think for yourself. If the people we depend on for food, products, and jobs are paying higher taxes, what will happen to your food, products, and jobs?

So enjoy the smaller numbers on your income tax form. But fear the lower numbers on your paycheck and the higher numbers in the store.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Of course, that's direct taxation through income tax. And it's true that Obama won't directly increase taxation for the middle class.

Most businesses will end up paying more tax. Most businesses don't have huge piles of money sitting in their closet in case taxes are raised. For every dollar you raise tax on a business is a dollar more they will charge for their product, or deduct from payroll.

Also, "phasing out" the Bush tax cuts will increase the taxes for a family making 31-45k by 13%, which he has said he plans to allow.

So it's all rather slick.
Will Obama enact legislation to directly increase taxation on the middle class taxes? No.
Will he substantially raise taxes on the Americans creating the most jobs? Yes.

So think for yourself. If the people we depend on for food, products, and jobs are paying higher taxes, what will happen to your food, products, and jobs?

So enjoy the smaller numbers on your income tax form. But fear the lower numbers on your paycheck and the higher numbers in the store.[/quote]

Will the raised taxes on the wealthy hurt us in the same way that previous tax cuts have helped us? If so, I can't say I'm too worried.

Or is it just that if their taxes hadn't been cut everything would suck terribly and the tax cuts are the only thing that kept that from happening?
 
[quote name='SpazX']fuck if I know, they probably weren't.[/quote]

Okay, so we agree: he made the whole thing up.

[quote name='SpazX']Only if it would really work. Most of what he talked about was a no-fly zone, working with NATO, and helicopters. Palin didn't seem to disagree anyway.[/quote]

The question was about boots on the ground and he mentioned doing something together with NATO. I guess this one is more open to interpretation, but he made it sound like he would support U.S. troops there. With our overstretched military, that seems to me to be a reckless idea.

[quote name='SpazX']Who said he wasn't? All Biden talked about was for people making under $250k, which won't have it raised.[/quote]

I understood he wanted to raise capital gains tax rates, and Biden has claimed he will not do so. I tried looking on Obama's website but it fails to list the tax increases he is advocating (conveniently), or at least I couldn't find them.

*EDIT = looking at a later post after I typed this one, I found the link to Obama's tax plan in full. While I doubt it can work fiscally (more like I KNOW it can't work), he does claim to not want to raise capital gains taxes on income of less than $250,000. Therefore, I was incorrect earlier.

[quote name='SpazX']I dunno what he was thinking, but the Obama/Biden ticket supports clean coal regardless.[/quote]

Exactly, he lied.

[quote name='SpazX']Pretty lame, though Biden was probably one of the more critical who ended up voting for it anyway.[/quote]

This is another one where he could have just said, you know what, I made a mistake, but we can't have that in politics, oh no.

[quote name='SpazX']Really? Far more inaccurate?[/QUOTE]

Yes, really.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Of course, that's direct taxation through income tax. And it's true that Obama won't directly increase taxation for the middle class.

Most businesses will end up paying more tax. Most businesses don't have huge piles of money sitting in their closet in case taxes are raised. For every dollar you raise tax on a business is a dollar more they will charge for their product, or deduct from payroll.

Also, "phasing out" the Bush tax cuts will increase the taxes for a family making 31-45k by 13%, which he has said he plans to allow.

So it's all rather slick.
Will Obama enact legislation to directly increase taxation on the middle class taxes? No.
Will he substantially raise taxes on the Americans creating the most jobs? Yes.

So think for yourself. If the people we depend on for food, products, and jobs are paying higher taxes, what will happen to your food, products, and jobs?

So enjoy the smaller numbers on your income tax form. But fear the lower numbers on your paycheck and the higher numbers in the store.[/QUOTE]
I don't really buy that. We have the Bush tax cuts right now and stuff like food have already increased in price. Gas as we all know are already through the roof.

I don't see how the Bush tax cuts have kept prices low. Is there reports that says prices were higher during the Clinton years and then lowered after Bush become president?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']It was funny to see Palin attack Biden and Obama's voting when McCain voted the same way.[/QUOTE]

Except for he didn't.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Except for he didn't.[/QUOTE]
Except for he did. Neither one voted to defund the war as was alleged, they voted against one version of the budget in favor of another. Obama supported one with a timeline and McCain supported one without. To portray it any other way is dishonest.

He said Hezbollah instead of Syria in reference to Lebanon. It was as much a slip of the tongue as Palin saying that Civil War General McClellan was in charge of Afghanistan.

Biden seemed to have a greater grasp of the facts and a greater understanding of the issues. Yes, its 35 years in Washington vs 5 weeks, but they're running for the same office, they should not be held to a different standard. A veteran pol like Dick Cheney would similarly blow away another pretty face with no substance like John Edwards.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Except for he didn't.[/quote]

Really?

I don't know if you're just playing Republican advocate, but it must be tough defending Palin around here.

I'm not voting for either ticket, but it's really hard to wrap my head arond someone supporting the McCain/Palin campaign. At least the dems claim to want to end the war.

I just want to break the two-party system, naive as that may be.
 
I do not understand why health care isn't getting much, much more attention. It pisses me off to see a two hour debate without any substantial discussion of health care... at least during the first pres debate they had an excuse in that it was a foreign policy debate.


Health care is by far the most crucial domestic issue. I think if Americans better understood the importance of each candidate's plan for health care this election would be more like 85 - 10 for Obama.
 
You could be right, I just saw a headline about Obama attacking McCain's healthcare plan, so I figure he is planning on going in for the kill on Tuesday.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Except for he did. Neither one voted to defund the war as was alleged, they voted against one version of the budget in favor of another. Obama supported one with a timeline and McCain supported one without. To portray it any other way is dishonest.[/quote]

You yourself say in your reply they didn't vote the same way. Not only that, but there was another vote Biden claimed McCain voted the same way as Obama when McCain didn't even vote (he was off campaigning).

[quote name='dafoomie']He said Hezbollah instead of Syria in reference to Lebanon. It was as much a slip of the tongue as Palin saying that Civil War General McClellan was in charge of Afghanistan.[/quote]

Not true that it was a slip of the tongue. He made up a whole narrative, concluding that Hezbollah is a part of the government of Lebanon, of which Syria is not...so you can hardly substitute "Syria" for "Hezbollah" and make his fantasyland rant true.

[quote name='dafoomie']Biden seemed to have a greater grasp of the facts and a greater understanding of the issues. Yes, its 35 years in Washington vs 5 weeks, but they're running for the same office, they should not be held to a different standard. A veteran pol like Dick Cheney would similarly blow away another pretty face with no substance like John Edwards.[/QUOTE]

Whether anyone "blows away" someone else depends entirely on what you value. As I said, I'd like to have seen Palin actually answer a couple of the questions she dodged, be more aggressive in calling out Biden's lies/mischaracterizations (such as his false claim she instituted a windfall profits tax on oil companies in Alaska), and be somewhat more detailed.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Really?

I don't know if you're just playing Republican advocate, but it must be tough defending Palin around here.

I'm not voting for either ticket, but it's really hard to wrap my head arond someone supporting the McCain/Palin campaign. At least the dems claim to want to end the war.

I just want to break the two-party system, naive as that may be.[/QUOTE]

Really. But I don't support McCain/Palin, Obama/Biden, or any other party actually. It just seems that way since 95% of people around here are liberal, and so there is often no one to argue against when I think conservative positions are wrong.

But we totally agree on breaking the two-party system. I would like a no-party system, FYI.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']You could be right, I just saw a headline about Obama attacking McCain's healthcare plan, so I figure he is planning on going in for the kill on Tuesday.[/QUOTE]

That is another thing Biden said that was misleading in the debate, calling McCain's plan a massive tax increase. Well, if you only include half his plan and leave out the $5,000 tax credit coupled with it, then it is a tax increase. But independent analysis of the plan has shown that most people would get a tax break, especially those less well off, under this plan. Biden claimed 20 million people would "lose their insurance" under McCain's plan, yet failed to mention 21 million would gain insurance another way, thus being a net gain. There are things to criticize, but they are just being dishonest about the whole thing.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']You yourself say in your reply they didn't vote the same way. Not only that, but there was another vote Biden claimed McCain voted the same way as Obama when McCain didn't even vote (he was off campaigning).[/quote]

EDIT: Nevermind, I think I was responding to the same bill... but anyway, saying that Obama votes against troop funding when McCain also does (depending on other things in the bill) is still dishonest.
 
McCain's health plan is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, seriously. It takes our current problem and makes it much worse. His plan only benefits insurance companies.

The big problem with health care is, for the millions of Americans with preexisting conditions, they simply cannot get coverage. No insurance company is going to insure somebody who will definitely cost more than they pay in premiums -- that's bad business. The result is the millions who need health care most -- those with chronic conditions that they can't afford to treat on their own -- are shut out.

Group health plans through employers are a good way around this. If you're well enough to work, you can find an employer who provides group health. Group health plans cover everyone in the group, regardless of preexisting conditions. This is currently the only way for people with serious preexisting conditions to get coverage -- and it only applies when those people aren't too sick to work, so it's still a broken system.

McCain's plan boils down to taxing employers who provide their employees with group health care and giving that money back to Americans to buy personal healthcare plans with. By raising the employers' cost for group health, fewer companies will offer it (and those who do will have to lower employee pay as a result) -- meaning more Americans will be seeking personal plans, and, again, those personal plans will always be denied to the people who need it most.


McCain's plan definitely helps insurance companies a lot. They'll have more personal plans and less group health plans, so they'll be able to easily weed out those dreaded high-cost sick people. They'll be able to only cover healthy people. Great for them, awful for any sick American.


McCain's plan takes a huge problem and makes it much, much, much worse.
 
I'm pretty sure allowing a politician to make all your health decisions is much worse than anything you can dream up.
 
[quote name='Koggit']McCain's health plan is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, seriously. It takes our current problem and makes it much worse. His plan only benefits insurance companies.

The big problem with health care is, for the millions of Americans with preexisting conditions, they simply cannot get coverage. No insurance company is going to insure somebody who will definitely cost more than they pay in premiums -- that's bad business. The result is the millions who need health care most -- those with chronic conditions that they can't afford to treat on their own -- are shut out.

Group health plans through employers are a good way around this. If you're well enough to work, you can find an employer who provides group health. Group health plans cover everyone in the group, regardless of preexisting conditions. This is currently the only way for people with serious preexisting conditions to get coverage -- and it only applies when those people aren't too sick to work, so it's still a broken system.

McCain's plan boils down to taxing employers who provide their employees with group health care and giving that money back to Americans to buy personal healthcare plans with. By raising the employers' cost for group health, fewer companies will offer it (and those who do will have to lower employee pay as a result) -- meaning more Americans will be seeking personal plans, and, again, those personal plans will always be denied to the people who need it most.


McCain's plan definitely helps insurance companies a lot. They'll have more personal plans and less group health plans, so they'll be able to easily weed out those dreaded high-cost sick people. They'll be able to only cover healthy people. Great for them, awful for any sick American.


McCain's plan takes a huge problem and makes it much, much, much worse.[/quote]

One more aspect: people with chronic conditions currently cost way more then they should.

It's because health insurance companies spend so much time and money fighting them that when they do finally get the treatment they need, it's much later, much less efficient, and much more costly then it could be if we had an actual system in place.

In alot of ways the health care industry has a similar "battle the customer" model to the one that the RIAA has - but with much more serious ramifications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top