Printable View
Yes, global warming is an outright scam. There isn't even close to enough scientific evidence to prove that we're causing it. REAL scientists who denounce global warming are silenced and ignored by idiots like Al Gore who fly their private plans to schools and state things like "no scientists disagree that global warming is man-made." I could go on and on, but that's for another thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by XLR8NMR2
Quote:
Originally Posted by XLR8NMR2
The ice caps are not melting and the polar bears are not dying. You are one of those people that believes everything you hear and falls for this nonsense. Do some research on your own.
Edit: oh and quit watching Al Gore's movie.
I don't think that was so much an attack as it was a snide comment to get a couple of laughs and lighten things up. I thought they both did a great job of keeping the mood light, and Palin commended Senator Biden repeatedly for issues he had stood up for or things he had done.....so overall it was a very civil debateQuote:
Originally Posted by stephen
mccain is just as guilty, that's why they both left it alone. mccain's financial advisor was a MORTGAGE LOBBYIST for some swiss bank (that was investing in the american lending market). yeeeaaah....so i'm sure he had some great finanacial advice...Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
Quote:
Originally Posted by alpine_xj
thank yoU! and sorry to the thread starter, i think we got off topic. lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by redGT
true, but my point was that he wasn't making any true attacks. comparing their ticket stats to known facts isn't really an attack. much like when she compared the two tickets, it wasn't an attack...she just gave "opinionated truths" and with SLIGHT facts.
lol, she did jam his foot in his mouth with comments that he made about obama during the primary debate. that was pretty funny. he should've just said "look...he was my opponent. i was attempting to win!" she almost ruined it though, by saying that afterwards he wanted to run with mccain. mccain did the samething after he lost back in 2000. he was ready to jump independent, then democrat...even wanted to run with kerry. either way, that's just politics, and striving to be top dog or atleast #2.
am I the only one that was waiting for her to say
"look you can either look at him, or these for the next four years*rips shirt open exposing magnificent ta tas *
/debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mr. KiDD again.
hahahahahahahha
Isn't that what Fox is for???Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
I had a good laugh watching this debate.
Palin did great at not answering the question at hand. Seem like every question was answered with some type of...... energy answer. Atleast she knows her energy. LOL
Actually Biden did the same. I think the final score was like 10 to 6.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdare23
Not answering questions is typical politician behavior...and frankly, in many circumstances required given the stupid nature of some reporters questions.
I watched the entire thing and didn't see a clear winner. I think they both hit their queues and made their points.
The one thing I did notice is that McCain's name was mentioned by both VP's WAY more than Obama's name was. Biden himself said McCain's name 62 times per the news. If you think about name recognition and how commercials work with repeating the name they want you to remember, I think McCain got more name advertising through that 90 minutes. LOL!
Palin did good at not screwing up. A lot of answers were regurgitated/rehearsed answers that weren't on topic. I find myself getting lost when she speaks. It is very difficult for me to listen to people who regurgitate the same responses "Na-eva-te". Biden seemed to know more about McCains record then she did. I think couple comments that stuck out w/ me were "I've only been at this for 5 weeks". Definately on the lines of Couric interview. Also did McCain/Palin now endorse rights for Gays? :thinking: She made it sound that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
Biden did and excellent job speaking. Walking a fine line of attack - I think he was more frustrated with the fact she couldn't stay on topic. I think his biggest problem was loosing people once he got indepth into policy; I think people who don't follow politics get bored w/ policy.
Overall both did good neither will change the race but Biden was by far the winner. It was a debate.
i was shocked when Palin gave an actually "Shout out." God forbid Obama ever do that, he will definitely under all conditions be labeled as "black" then.
She's a country girl.
the only problem i had with biden was he was more factual, but his facts were wrong.
Unfortunetly the mainstream media prob wont point that out.
He was wrong about Mccain voting against the funding of troops with obama
he was wrong about him voting FOR the war and attacking Obama it was a war resolution
there was like 5 others that both Dems and Repubs had him on last night .
I agree with paul if you are looking at DEBATE winner, Biden by a landslide.
But it remains to be seen if thats what people were really looking for.
That focus group said they thought BIden was too much of a robot and they liked how Palin seemed to talk to them.
Interesting for sure.
One thing i will re-iterate is that i have a new found respect for BIden. His policies suck, but i commend him for being polite and respectfull unlike his running mate.
actually mccain did vote against funding a couple of times see his voting record. i have stated this before. he voted against every bill that would seek to bring some sort of a time line to iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
honestly i wish the gloves came off b/c biden could of tore her apart and she wouldn't of been able to defend herself against him, but of course sympathy card would of been played. looking at the two side by side biden is a far superior choice for VP. i think it was smart for obama to pick him b/c he give lots of strength to the campaign. palin i think is dead weight when it comes to the ticket. she is a pretty face (period). i think she will be a better contender for 2012. i wouldn't be highly surprised to see her make a run at it once she gets more experience under her belt. (i'm sure some will say the same about obama - but you can't compare the two. its a mute point)
not to get off topicQuote:
Originally Posted by admin
but im sorry i dont think so
#
Voting Record
# Congress has no authority to cut off funds for Iraqi use. (Jan 2007)
# Voted NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months. (Dec 2007)
# Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
# Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
# Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
# Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
# Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
# Voted NO on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
# Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
# Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
# Supports $48 billion in new spending for anti-terrorism. (Jan 2002)
# CIA assessments ib Iraqi WMDs were all wrong. (Mar 2005)
# Belief in Iraqi nukes was poor analysis of aluminum tubes. (Mar 2005)
# Belief in Iraqi BWs was based on one unreliable person. (Mar 2005)
# Belief in Iraqi CWs was based on flawed imagery. (Mar 2005)
# Iraq never had delivery systems to attack US mainland. (Mar 2005)
# CIA never questioned assumption that Saddam had WMDs. (Mar 2005)
# Conclusions on Iran and North Korea are all classified. (Mar 2005)
# Support the completion of the US mission in Iraq. (Feb 2007)
# Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. (Nov 1995)
you know what, i think the main problem is there is so many fu.cking votes on 17 different versions of the bill its hard to find what really happened.
Obama voted no cause it had no TIMELINE which is what he wanted , so he wasnte neccesarily cutting funding off.
Mccain actually did a NO VOTE on the issue.
hmmmmmmmm
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvo...hp?cs_id=19356
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvo...hp?cs_id=19354
Biden voted yes! LOL
confusing that is for sure
I was honestly surprised by both the debate last night and the reactions in this thread.
I think Palin held her own, however, I feel like she diverged from the questions at times, and was also a bit redundant. Biden did as expected and he came off confident and strong all without being an *******.
It was an interesting debate to say the least. My only complaint is that it would be great to see them debate a few more times.
Actually, McCain voted against funding for troops in regards to HR 1591 in 2007 - Source
He voted against funding for troops in regards to HR 4939 in 2006 - Source
The point is that both parties have voted against funding for troops for perfectly good reasons, not because they are trying to deny troops funds.
Did anyone else have their heart skip a beat last night when Biden/Obama said he want to allow people who don't pay their bills to have the principle on their mortgage reduced!?!!??!?!?!??! I mean seriously, how much more communist can you get?
"BIDEN SAID "We should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to readjust, not just the interest rate you are paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but in -- be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that that you owe. That would keep people in their homes"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...age=1
Yup I did. Hence why I don't want the bailoutQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
thanks...Quote:
Originally Posted by joecoolfreak
the problem w/ the funding troops is a "fundamental difference" :D
reps refused to put a time line on war (now bush is doing that anyway), dems wanted time line b/c they don't feel Iraqis are pulling their weight and that we aren't over there for the right reasons. so they want a time line.
reps don't vote for dems supported bills - reps make bills w/o time line and if dems don't vote then they are unpatriotic. its a vicious cycle of politics.
doesn't matter either way time line is needed. people are disillusioned about the war and want it over. we should be focusing on Afghanistan; which is where Bin Ladin is.
i agree , wow, holy sh!tQuote:
Originally Posted by BobbyFresh
I'm sorry but if you can tell me 1 just 1 war in the history of this country that has had a time table that has been successful then I might be able to support one. But the fact of the matter is that we didn't have a timetable for the revolution, the civil war,or either world wars.Their over when they're over.Quote:
Originally Posted by admin
I agree 100%. Dont bother showing me a voting record unless you can show me the bills also. There are so many otherwise good bills that members of congress vote 'NO' on because of a single point of principle. Like the war funding bills that both McCain and Obama are getting hammered on, the "NO" votes from both came because of the debate over a timeline, not funding.Quote:
Originally Posted by admin
I dont think a timeline is needed, but a definative list of goals is needed. A big part of the problem over there is who to trust. There have been many instances of police and soldiers turning on Iraqis and Americans so no one wants to move too fast on turning over districts to Iraqi control.Quote:
Originally Posted by admin
I think most of that comes from the heavily antiwar biased news coverage we have gotten from the MSM. They never seem to mention all of the good that is happening and only mention the bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by admin
If he is even in Afghanistan. I think the chances are better that he is in Pakistan. He is safe from spies and troops there because the Pakistani govt refuses to go into that region. Even if he was in Afghanistan, the only way the US would find him in those mountians is by pure luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by admin
how about i give you one we didn't have a plan or a timeline for? vietnam - does that ring a bell ya. exact reason why a plan/timeline is needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by redGT
you are trying to argue like iraq has a purpose. we all know administration basically lied to get us into iraq and it hasn't helped the economy one bit.
I have a different idea about Vietnam. It was the only other war that was used as a political tool. War needs to be handled by Generals, not Senators. I thought we learned that during Viatman, but aparently we havent.Quote:
Originally Posted by admin
too much to discuss but plain and simple we shouldn't be in iraq to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
this is problem w/ this type of thinking... WE DON'T KNOW where he is b/c we shifted our efforts to a country that had nothing to do w/ reason we are in the middle east. what do you expect? point is we need to get back on task and seek out Bin Ladin starting in Afghanistan or we need to hang up our boots and work on our efforts home. IMO
Generals are puppets to politicians. Agendas come from washington and generals carry out the task. Its that simple.Quote:
I have a different idea about Vietnam. It was the only other war that was used as a political tool. War needs to be handled by Generals, not Senators. I thought we learned that during Viatman, but aparently we havent.
Dont rewrite history.Quote:
Originally Posted by admin
80% of Congress was in favor of the war
We DID NOT go to IRAQ over 9/11
We DID NOT go to IRAQ over WMD
I wonder what the number of JOBS CREATED because of the war are......
80% is an easy number considering we were told of involvement in 9/11 + WMD ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
like i said this a topic that isn't worth discussing.
I also wonder what kind of jobs we could of created w/ the money from Iraq. Would of paid for this bailout plan.
Wow. One failed war in the history of the country :rolleyes: . Again Show me a war where we have had a successful timetable and I will eat my own words.Quote:
Originally Posted by admin
It doesn't matter if Iraq has a purpose or not at this point. We are too far into be arguing about this. What's done is done. If we don't finish the job it will be disastrous for the national security of this country. Again and I have been arguing this till I'm blue in the face. If we do in Iraq what we did in Afghanistan way back when there will be serious repricusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redGT
This is exactly why I quit talking about what got us into Iraq. It no longer matters and unless we finish the correct way, we will be back again in 5 years to try to fix a bigger mess than me ever had to start with.
Yup. But unfortunately the majority of the citizens simply don't see it that's way. I watched the debate on my least favorite network CNN and everytime Palin talked about Iraq and how we needed to finish the needle just plunged. People are too short sighted to see it's too late and that we need to finish.Quote:
Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
war w/o purpose is a failed war. there is no successful war anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by redGT
but obviously many people other then you two think this war is pointless and it is... you can't stop fighting that has been going on for 1000s of years over night. by your thinking we will be there till doomsday. we have no interest in being there.
this war has done nothing but cost us. you want to go to war drop 1 f*cking bomb and call it a day. save tax payers 500+ billion dollars so we can get this economy back on track.
I didn't watch the debate completely because of work but it sounds like Biden stuck to the facts while Palin was steering her way around the questions. But at the same time Palin did well because everyone set the bar soo low.
The highlights that I saw were obvious that Biden performed well while Palin sounded annoying and scripted.
Here is what the CNN poll says...
Who fared better in the vice presidential debate?
Sen. Joe Biden 66% 350668
Gov. Sarah Palin 28% 149739
Neither 5% 28826
Total Votes: 529233
yeah but FOX had them atQuote:
Originally Posted by Greed
86% Palin
12% Biden
so you cant go by those
I am watching last nights Hannity and Combs, I watched an Obama supporter get slammed cause she had to admit that she didnt know that the bottom 50% of tax payers pay only 2.9% of all taxes.
How is the top 50%'s share of the tax burden equals 97.1% of the taxes? I really dont agree that I would call that fair as Biden does.
How dare somebody disagree with teh almighty F O X News.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. KiDD
CBS had a similar poll but at least acknowledged that they were mostly Obama supporters. Then they asked for people in the group that thought Palin did better. Conveniently, two of them were up front right by the announcer.
One was a vet who said the exact opposite of "it sounds like Biden stuck to the facts while Palin was steering her way around the questions." The reporter then asked where he was from and when he said Idaho (or some other state that is considered irrelevant) you could almost feel the distain oozing from the studio.
The next person looked like an eskimo. I kept waiting for them to say she was from Alaska just so they could roll their eyes.