The Official VP Debate Thread

[th87]

To me, she's more like a high school coach running the wishbone getting an NFL offensive coordinator gig.

I'll accept this. But it's a whole lot different than an analogy where a fan (say th87) is allowed to run the whole organization/team.

So then my in-over-my-head factor is, say, 8. The high school coach's in-over-his-head factor is, say, 6. Neither are good, and in my opinion, neither are acceptable.

[th87]

That's just me. I want someone who knows what they're talking about. You can have a folksy accent or whatever. Just know what you're saying, and give me something of substance, rather than stupid buzzwords.

So there it is - in my opinion, she sounds like an idiot AND hasn't done anything of substance. That's scary.

Now, I'm not voting mccain/palin, so I ask this in all seriousness. You won't vote for the #2 based on those reasons, but a first term senator from Illinois with no executive experience is cool?

A guy who's list of blunders includes saying he would bomb in pakistan without their gov'ts approval, a guy who would meet with imanutjob with no prereqs? A guy who's understanding of economics is as fundamentally flawed as mccains and initially said he would nearly double capital gains taxes to 28%? I would also point out that in obama's debate he said uh and umm about 5 billion times. Yea, he is well spoken and sounds like he knows what he is talking about.

Palin, imo, is solid cuz she did take on the oil companies in alaska, has been an executive at two levels, and simply "gets" econ 101. Did she blunder with the russia comment? I guess so, but when is the last time katie or anyone else asked obama about his foreign policy experience?

Finally to show bias, katie couric immediately following the debate:

"Well Sarah Palin avoided making a fool of herself tonight..."

MY GOD, wtf was she thinking. I put this one right up their with judy woodruff:

"America threw a tantrum tonight" (tears and all, bottom lip quivering)

Me, I'm going to vote for real change. I'm hoping mccain loses by 2 points and Barr gets 3% showing the republican party that they must get real about small gov't and taking on real issues if they want to win.

A mccain gov't is as bad as an obama gov't, but too many people just can't see that.

The Senate deals with pretty important global issues. It's the key battleground for tons of important decisions. Therefore, Obama's exposure to the "world" is far higher than Palin's. I could run Alaska with its 5 people.

Even though Obama stumbles, he looks like he's going somewhere with his thoughts, whereas Palin snuggles comfortably within her talking points. It's like that "I like turtles" kid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y

And as an aside, why is it such a big deal to meet with Ahmadinejad? What would happen? Would bombs start exploding? I don't see why. Would they attack us? No reason to think so. Would they attack Israel? Nope. While I don't think it'd really help, I don't exactly see how it would hurt either. Vito Corleone met with Barzini too. It's smart politics to engage everyone. It seems awfully egotistical and stubborn to just stick to this principle of "We don't talk to our enemies," just because. I don't see a good reason for it.

I agree with your Couric comment. It's kind of obnoxious. But the right does it too.

Also agree that the difference between an Obama and McCain government would be minimal. Ron Paul sounded intriguing.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Rand, you are hilarious. You can't even stand the term "contributed mightily." You are suggesting that he didn't? And, the response was because a poster was blaming dems. There is plenty of blame.

Much better. To hear you talk about it, the whole thing is on Gramm, as Chair of the banking committee. That was my point.

For example, writing stuff like "Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted." - Did you write that yourself or get it off Daily Kos or Huff post? As though these guys know the stuff well enough to read through it all. They have staffs to read it and understand it. Are you saying Clinton's staff of brilliant economic minds couldn't tell him about the devastation to come and that he shouldn't sign it?

Much better? You are a joke. Your side continually blames only dems and when pointed out REPEATEDLY that there is blame for all....you attack me.

I note that you can't refute his Leavitt's position. Good. Now, point some resposibility at Gramm. This is who you want in gov't again.

Bill: The timing of the bill was crucial. If you care to debate that...post some relevant info instead of just questions. I've made my assertion, which is backed up by the timeline of the bill...and reading it..has nothing to do with political affiliation.

Let me clear it up for you...AGAIN. December 15, 2000. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. That is exactly the perfect time to do his little dirty work.

As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

Yeah..i'm sure that there was plenty of time to read it. No pressure to get the budget passed.

Gramm spoke about it... that it would ensure that neither the sec nor the CFTC got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps—and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."

I know that i can speak for the regular folks of america....it feels great today being a world leader in financial services and that i'm thrilled that was no regulation of the swaps.

[bobblehead]

and isn't aware of simple political facts like the Bush Doctrine, I'm going to have a very, very hard time believing that this person's competent for the second job in America.

And what pray tell, is the Bush Doctrine?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091202457.html

Fine. Potentially bad example, but it's commonly known as preemptive warring.

Focus more on the slant of her replies: "We have to stop these terrorists that are HELL BENT on destroying America!"

These are simply emotionally-charged catchphrases. Very little substance. I want substance. I want someone that looks like they know a whole lot more than I do. This is an executive position at stake, not a pep rally.

OK, 40% of muslims in the middle east believe america is evil and should be destroyed, over 90% of them want israel obliterated....is that enough substance??

[th87]

and isn't aware of simple political facts like the Bush Doctrine, I'm going to have a very, very hard time believing that this person's competent for the second job in America.

And what pray tell, is the Bush Doctrine?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091202457.html

Fine. Potentially bad example, but it's commonly known as preemptive warring.

Focus more on the slant of her replies: "We have to stop these terrorists that are HELL BENT on destroying America!"

These are simply emotionally-charged catchphrases. Very little substance. I want substance. I want someone that looks like they know a whole lot more than I do. This is an executive position at stake, not a pep rally.

OK, 40% of muslims in the middle east believe america is evil and should be destroyed, over 90% of them want israel obliterated....is that enough substance??

So she can discuss how she plans to deal with that without the hysteria.

1. Here's an example of Palin-speak:

Reporter: Coach th87, how would you attack the Falcons offensively?

Me: We must do whatever it takes! We must win!

2. Here's kind of what I'm looking for:

Reporter: Coach th87, how would you attack the Falcons offensively?

Me: We've studied the film and have found some things that we feel we can be successful with. We'll try to take advantage of what we've found, stay cognizant of the fundamentals, and make sure we execute our game plan.

[HowardRoark]

These are simply emotionally-charged catchphrases. Very little substance. I want substance. I want someone that looks like they know a whole lot more than I do. This is an executive position at stake, not a pep rally.

I agree. She should have said neeat-o things like, "yes we can!"

[Zool]

You know what she is? She's a




Or at least that what she said 682 times.

[mraynrand]

Rand, you are hilarious. You can't even stand the term "contributed mightily." You are suggesting that he didn't? And, the response was because a poster was blaming dems. There is plenty of blame.

Much better. To hear you talk about it, the whole thing is on Gramm, as Chair of the banking committee. That was my point.

For example, writing stuff like "Few lawmakers had either the opportunity or inclination to read the version of the bill Gramm inserted." - Did you write that yourself or get it off Daily Kos or Huff post? As though these guys know the stuff well enough to read through it all. They have staffs to read it and understand it. Are you saying Clinton's staff of brilliant economic minds couldn't tell him about the devastation to come and that he shouldn't sign it?

Much better? You are a joke. Your side continually blames only dems and when pointed out REPEATEDLY that there is blame for all....you attack me.

I note that you can't refute his Leavitt's position. Good. Now, point some resposibility at Gramm. This is who you want in gov't again.

Bill: The timing of the bill was crucial. If you care to debate that...post some relevant info instead of just questions. I've made my assertion, which is backed up by the timeline of the bill...and reading it..has nothing to do with political affiliation.

Let me clear it up for you...AGAIN. December 15, 2000. Only two days earlier, the Supreme Court had issued its decision on Bush v. Gore. President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress were locked in a budget showdown. That is exactly the perfect time to do his little dirty work.

As Congress and the White House were hurriedly hammering out a $384-billion omnibus spending bill, Gramm slipped in a 262-page measure called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act.

Yeah..i'm sure that there was plenty of time to read it. No pressure to get the budget passed.

Gramm spoke about it... that it would ensure that neither the sec nor the CFTC got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps—and would thus "protect financial institutions from overregulation" and "position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century."

I know that i can speak for the regular folks of america....it feels great today being a world leader in financial services and that i'm thrilled that was no regulation of the swaps.

Why did Clinton sign it? Certainly he knows washington politics as well as you - and knew Gramm was just trying to push through a bad bill. At least one advisor must have had at least 10 minutes in between managing the budget bill to tell Bill not to sign it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Why would clinton know? Was he privy to it's drafting? No.

Present some evidence that shows that someone knew what was going on.

Quite clearly most (repubs and dems) didn't have the time..and like MOST bills they dont' have the inclination to read what is in it.

[Zool]

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Mavericky!!

[Zool]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maverick

mav·er·ick
/ˈmævərɪk, ˈmævrɪk/ Pronunciation[mav-er-ik, mav-rik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Southwestern U.S. an unbranded calf, cow, or steer, esp. an unbranded calf that is separated from its mother.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?page=2&term=maverick

Maverick

One who uses a wingman to overcome the cockblocking ugly female friend of a hotter female.

The Maverick got some last night thanks to his Wingman.

[Zool]

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[hoosier]