and I can't take much more of this. Listening to this stupid bimbo is like listening a never-ending loop of elevator music. Why, why, why isn't Gwen Ifel demanding that she answer at least one question???
OK, it's almost ten o'clock,
- Thread starter bajaespuma
- Start date
She's not the train wreck that I though she would be, but I don't think she has answered any questions. You can tell what they coached her on, she keeps redirecting to those topics no matter what the question is.
She seems like she is a nice person, but she is in over her head.
She seems like she is a nice person, but she is in over her head.
gyrafoam
Well-known member
Gwen Earfull is usually more animated than this.
I'm with you though. I'm through yelling at the t.v.
I'll look over a transcript later.
I'm with you though. I'm through yelling at the t.v.
I'll look over a transcript later.
peterh770
Well-known member
Joe looks tired and sounds angry. More tired same Washington. Blah, blah, blah. At least she has more executive experience than them all. They should all stand aside and just let Sara be president.
Yeppers Peter!!!
The two of you can have her.
The two of you can have her.
LOL!
I thought they both did just fine. I could be wrong, but I doubt that this debate is going to change much of anything, and that's just fine with me.
LOL!
I thought they both did just fine. I could be wrong, but I doubt that this debate is going to change much of anything, and that's just fine with me.
jetaction
Well-known member
I am with Robert......
I thought she did much better than I would have thought and I am happy for her for that. They both did well and it is nice to see more civilized politics this time around. I think I may start to wear a bun.........
I thought she did much better than I would have thought and I am happy for her for that. They both did well and it is nice to see more civilized politics this time around. I think I may start to wear a bun.........
They both seem to be stuck on the same things despite the questions she's asking. Byden keeps saying that McCain equals Bush, but of course, it comes from Palin recycling all the Bush cliches of the past, like not ending Iraq, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc.
NOBODY has said ANYTHING about reducing the size of the government, cutting the federal budget, slashing spending, etc. That is what would do it for me!!! Illegal immigration wasn't even mentioned either. Yes, I lean Republican, but you gotta hand it to Clinton for balancing the budget!!!
Seems like no matter who is elected here, we are going to get 4 years of the same BS...excessive spending, more socialist programs (pick which side of the aisle as to which socialist programs you want!) Bigger deficits, less freedom, that type of crap!
...at least the two agreed on same-sex partner benefits, and marriage. What's you guys thoughts on that!
NOBODY has said ANYTHING about reducing the size of the government, cutting the federal budget, slashing spending, etc. That is what would do it for me!!! Illegal immigration wasn't even mentioned either. Yes, I lean Republican, but you gotta hand it to Clinton for balancing the budget!!!
Seems like no matter who is elected here, we are going to get 4 years of the same BS...excessive spending, more socialist programs (pick which side of the aisle as to which socialist programs you want!) Bigger deficits, less freedom, that type of crap!
...at least the two agreed on same-sex partner benefits, and marriage. What's you guys thoughts on that!
I can't believe anyone would think she could even BEGIN to handle the presidency. She's in way, way over her head. As I mentioned in another thread, the bar was set so low for her after the Couric interview that she couldn't possibly fail tonight.
Having said that, she really didn't seem to be able to give direct answers to questions. Again, she doesn't know what she's talking about! Her answers were all SO coaching-by-sound-bite.
We may not like politicians, but I've seen what happens when you put a non-politician in a major office ( Jesse Ventura, as governer of Minnesota).
It may seem like a good idea when you're frustrated with Washington, but the results would be bad. Very bad. She obviously has no scope for anything past her own back yard. Let her govern Alaska.
Having said that, she really didn't seem to be able to give direct answers to questions. Again, she doesn't know what she's talking about! Her answers were all SO coaching-by-sound-bite.
We may not like politicians, but I've seen what happens when you put a non-politician in a major office ( Jesse Ventura, as governer of Minnesota).
It may seem like a good idea when you're frustrated with Washington, but the results would be bad. Very bad. She obviously has no scope for anything past her own back yard. Let her govern Alaska.
Tolerance? That was the best part!
Biden's deliberate words-in-mouth recap of "Oh, so you believe in civil rights for gay people just like I do, right, Sarah?"
*crickets chirp*
"Er..."
I loved that part too, Jeff. Hooray for tolerance! Someday I might aspire to be subhuman.
The galling part was that she noted that they wouldn't do anything to preclude things like equal visitation rights and so forth. The problem is that there is presently (in most places) nothing to provide for that in the first place.
Biden's deliberate words-in-mouth recap of "Oh, so you believe in civil rights for gay people just like I do, right, Sarah?"
*crickets chirp*
"Er..."
I loved that part too, Jeff. Hooray for tolerance! Someday I might aspire to be subhuman.
The galling part was that she noted that they wouldn't do anything to preclude things like equal visitation rights and so forth. The problem is that there is presently (in most places) nothing to provide for that in the first place.
Yeah, I don't think it changed much of anything. They both clearly have a distinct ability to recite rehearsed answers within a two minute or ninety second time limit but that's a given in televised debating. The Chatty-Cathy doll analogy was pretty spot-on for her though - no different than any other politician. Looking into the camera and actually winking at the audience (forchristsakes!!) made her look like a rank amateur - which is esentially what she is. Her "executive experience" is short, thin and littered with amateurish scandal. Declining approval ratings in her home state speak volumes of her self-titled maverick and homespun line of crap.
Biden did an excellent job of dispelling the "maverick" line of bullshit Palin and McCain keep stumping on and he did a good job summing up the fact there is very little distinction between McCain/Palin and Bush.
Biden did an excellent job of dispelling the "maverick" line of bullshit Palin and McCain keep stumping on and he did a good job summing up the fact there is very little distinction between McCain/Palin and Bush.
She wasn't as bad as I thought she'd be, but at about the 10PM point she basically quit answering the question that was asked. I sat there blinking when her answers did not relate to the question in any way.
Biden seems calm, collected and almost presidential, he handled it well. I did not detect any rancor from either of them, unlike Mcain's disdain for Obama. I like the end where they seemed to have a good conversation with their families milling around, I'd have loved to hear what they were saying.
Biden seems calm, collected and almost presidential, he handled it well. I did not detect any rancor from either of them, unlike Mcain's disdain for Obama. I like the end where they seemed to have a good conversation with their families milling around, I'd have loved to hear what they were saying.
Someone here said that Palin 'seemed nice'
'Seemed' is spot on. I know people like her and from where I'm looking I 'know' that nice she isn't. She's got a nice smile, nice dress sense and nice hair, but that's about as 'nice' as it gets. In my estimations she is a borderline sociopath, who bullies people and always has the last word on everything. One can tell that being part of her family or the receiving end of her ire wouldn't be much fun. What was all this stuff about her using her public position to make life difficult for an ex-family member and anyone else not doing her bidding? That already speaks volumes about her level of uncorruptable professionalism in politics. Be warned gentlemen, Palin is a textbook vagina dentata. ;0)
'Seemed' is spot on. I know people like her and from where I'm looking I 'know' that nice she isn't. She's got a nice smile, nice dress sense and nice hair, but that's about as 'nice' as it gets. In my estimations she is a borderline sociopath, who bullies people and always has the last word on everything. One can tell that being part of her family or the receiving end of her ire wouldn't be much fun. What was all this stuff about her using her public position to make life difficult for an ex-family member and anyone else not doing her bidding? That already speaks volumes about her level of uncorruptable professionalism in politics. Be warned gentlemen, Palin is a textbook vagina dentata. ;0)
"...at least the two agreed on same-sex partner benefits, and marriage. What's you guys thoughts on that!"
I'm not so sure about that they did agree. What really interested me was that during that part of the debate, I was in the next room, working on the computer, and half-listening. (I needed to get some stuff done last night, and--frankly--I didn't see much sense in watching the debate.) When the topic of same sex rights came up, I was jolted. Not by the answer. But something about her voice. It seemed to change. Up until then, it was well modulated. Maybe too well modulated, as if putting on an act she'd rehearsed for days. But her voice seemed--to my ears, at least--to change at times. Like when talking about gay rights.
It's hard for me to characterize, but the sense I got was that she wasn't really being honest. She was saying what she thinks certain voters want to hear, not what she really believes. (To be fair, that's nothing new in politics.)
Put it another way--if she was my daughter (God forbid!) and she had that tone of voice saying "I'm doing OK" in school, I'd probably be on the phone, talking to her teachers, finding out exactly what was going on.
I detected at least one more voice change--I think it was talking about working with the other party, putting partisanship to one side, all that usual drivel.
Overall, though, I was actually mildly impressed with Palin's performance. Some would say it was nothing more than a performance, and I won't necessarily argue with that. Yet, she does emerge better on screen than Bush ever has. And I'm sure that along the line, someone has tried to work with Bush, to make him sound better.
I'm not so sure about that they did agree. What really interested me was that during that part of the debate, I was in the next room, working on the computer, and half-listening. (I needed to get some stuff done last night, and--frankly--I didn't see much sense in watching the debate.) When the topic of same sex rights came up, I was jolted. Not by the answer. But something about her voice. It seemed to change. Up until then, it was well modulated. Maybe too well modulated, as if putting on an act she'd rehearsed for days. But her voice seemed--to my ears, at least--to change at times. Like when talking about gay rights.
It's hard for me to characterize, but the sense I got was that she wasn't really being honest. She was saying what she thinks certain voters want to hear, not what she really believes. (To be fair, that's nothing new in politics.)
Put it another way--if she was my daughter (God forbid!) and she had that tone of voice saying "I'm doing OK" in school, I'd probably be on the phone, talking to her teachers, finding out exactly what was going on.
I detected at least one more voice change--I think it was talking about working with the other party, putting partisanship to one side, all that usual drivel.
Overall, though, I was actually mildly impressed with Palin's performance. Some would say it was nothing more than a performance, and I won't necessarily argue with that. Yet, she does emerge better on screen than Bush ever has. And I'm sure that along the line, someone has tried to work with Bush, to make him sound better.
polkanut
Well-known member
I don't care what others may think but I for one will always believe that she should crawl back to her little po-dunk town and be a grandmother to her underage daughter's child, and leave the rest of the world alone with her smarmy ideas & attitude.
toggleswitch2
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 23, 2008
- Messages
- 5,000
Just remember world, Americans are not necessarily like thei
Ah smells a landslide election this time around.
And as such there will be little need to rig the election.
Let us all pray that the winner is not (at all like)the Anti-christ or the world-terrorist war-mongering inbred buffoons of the past and present.
and (tongue-in cheeck...[I said cheek not cheeks])-
G-d bless America, honey....because nobody else will.
Ah smells a landslide election this time around.
And as such there will be little need to rig the election.
Let us all pray that the winner is not (at all like)the Anti-christ or the world-terrorist war-mongering inbred buffoons of the past and present.
and (tongue-in cheeck...[I said cheek not cheeks])-
G-d bless America, honey....because nobody else will.
toggleswitch2
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 23, 2008
- Messages
- 5,000
For you vomiting pleasure.
The entire tranny-script of the Gay marriage question:
IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples? BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.
It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?
PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead.
But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.
But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.
But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.
But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.
IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy.
IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples? BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.
It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?
PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead.
But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.
But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.
But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.
But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.
IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy.
Doggone it I hate phoney folksiness, dontcha all too for gosh darn sakes. What is she playing here a female Jimmy Stewart goes to Washington?
It ain't winking, it's HOODWINKING
It ain't winking, it's HOODWINKING
The Constitution isn't only about freedom of,
but also freedom from religion. It would appear that a lot of people have a real problem understanding the meaning of 'secular democracy.' Here in Australia it is the same. Everyone talks about freedom of religion etc. and blah blah, but what folks seem not to understand and acknowledge, is that government and its policies should not be guided/influenced by religious doctrine of whatever denomination. Nor should religious groups/organizations be given preferential treatments. Government policies should reflect the plurality of society, be fair, humane, based on informed and educated opinions, promote equality and, most of all, empower citizens. At least that's what I understood to be the meaning of secular democracy. Then again, maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it.
What does faith have to do with marriage under common law anyway? Either all citizens are granted the same rights under civil law or they are not. I don't understand why this gay marriage issue constantly deteriorates into a stupid exercise of silly semantics. If people like Palin, Obama et al believe so strongly that marriage can only be worthwhile and appropriate between people of opposite gender, then it is up to them to provide conclusive evidence to support their stance. Otherwise they should stay out of the way of progressive common law reform.
but also freedom from religion. It would appear that a lot of people have a real problem understanding the meaning of 'secular democracy.' Here in Australia it is the same. Everyone talks about freedom of religion etc. and blah blah, but what folks seem not to understand and acknowledge, is that government and its policies should not be guided/influenced by religious doctrine of whatever denomination. Nor should religious groups/organizations be given preferential treatments. Government policies should reflect the plurality of society, be fair, humane, based on informed and educated opinions, promote equality and, most of all, empower citizens. At least that's what I understood to be the meaning of secular democracy. Then again, maybe I'm the one who doesn't get it.
What does faith have to do with marriage under common law anyway? Either all citizens are granted the same rights under civil law or they are not. I don't understand why this gay marriage issue constantly deteriorates into a stupid exercise of silly semantics. If people like Palin, Obama et al believe so strongly that marriage can only be worthwhile and appropriate between people of opposite gender, then it is up to them to provide conclusive evidence to support their stance. Otherwise they should stay out of the way of progressive common law reform.
peterh770
Well-known member
That's what it might mean down under, but that is not what it means here. It means that the govt will not pass laws that promote or deny a religion. It does not mean that religious principles can not influence or guide the govt.
Last night, they rightly agreed that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that priviledges bestowed upon those who are married can also be bestowed on gay couples. Shoot, one election cycle ago (and all previous) they couldn't agree on that. That is a huge win in my book!
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Last night, they rightly agreed that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that priviledges bestowed upon those who are married can also be bestowed on gay couples. Shoot, one election cycle ago (and all previous) they couldn't agree on that. That is a huge win in my book!
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It was obvious to me that...
that she was clearly skirting the question that Joe shot back at her. No surprise here. While I do believe McCain himself is much more moderate on gay issues, if this woman and her followers had their way they would they would never allow us to be who we are. These are a few of her followers, read their comments, hold onto your diet cokes...
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=271028
that she was clearly skirting the question that Joe shot back at her. No surprise here. While I do believe McCain himself is much more moderate on gay issues, if this woman and her followers had their way they would they would never allow us to be who we are. These are a few of her followers, read their comments, hold onto your diet cokes...
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=271028
Dinosaurs . . .
So some Palin-ites are convniced that dinosaurs recently roamed the earth. Let's hope the upcoming election proves them right by turning a lot of elephants into living dinosaurs.
So some Palin-ites are convniced that dinosaurs recently roamed the earth. Let's hope the upcoming election proves them right by turning a lot of elephants into living dinosaurs.
I'm totally flabbergasted by these comments! It seems like a lot of people still live in the dark ages.
And oh! The homosexual agenda is back again! I almost thought we lost it but somebody found it again!!
I'm glad I live in a country that has a better separation between state and church.
And oh! The homosexual agenda is back again! I almost thought we lost it but somebody found it again!!
I'm glad I live in a country that has a better separation between state and church.
magic clean
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2004
- Messages
- 511
Here
is another interesting tidbit from Wasilla, See the link and/or HRC.org
is another interesting tidbit from Wasilla, See the link and/or HRC.org
News out this morning, 750,000 jobs lost since January '08. Where is their sky-god now? I'd bet they'd recite again that this is judgement for our wicked ways.
I suppose the first humans ordered their dinosaur saddles from Sears? It gets funnier every time you read it but at the same time, that these complete morons might have the power to "influence and guide the government" is just absolutely frightening. Life must be pretty easy when you lack - or relinquish - all rational thought. Fortunately, this example might be toward the extreme, I know many who consider themselves chrisitians that would never be lulled into this nonsense.
I find Caribou Barbie's use of the word "tolerant" to be extremely offensive. While it may be a shift in position, I think what she meant was very different than how some may perceive it today. Remember, she did use the word "choose" in the context of her ramblings on this subject and that speaks volumes. I guess a small victory can be claimed but it's fragile at best. I'm sure they think we should be rejoicing that we're being allowed to breathe the same air and are not going to be rounded up into camps and gassed. Yay !
I suppose the first humans ordered their dinosaur saddles from Sears? It gets funnier every time you read it but at the same time, that these complete morons might have the power to "influence and guide the government" is just absolutely frightening. Life must be pretty easy when you lack - or relinquish - all rational thought. Fortunately, this example might be toward the extreme, I know many who consider themselves chrisitians that would never be lulled into this nonsense.
I find Caribou Barbie's use of the word "tolerant" to be extremely offensive. While it may be a shift in position, I think what she meant was very different than how some may perceive it today. Remember, she did use the word "choose" in the context of her ramblings on this subject and that speaks volumes. I guess a small victory can be claimed but it's fragile at best. I'm sure they think we should be rejoicing that we're being allowed to breathe the same air and are not going to be rounded up into camps and gassed. Yay !
