The Veep Debate

moving to Hardcore since it appears this will continue to be a back and forth justification of one's own posts to each other than actually about the topic.

Moon,
I will attempt answers to your (very) good questions.

But first and foremost you must understand the nature of a political discussion. Facts are absolutely necessary to some, lost on others. In other words, the questions you posed contain more common sense, even without being accompanied by answers, than most answers you would ever receive.

The answer to your first question re where the blame goes answered itself. Yes, the govt made demands on lending institutions to go forward with these subprime loans. They're getting "the bum rap" because of the class warfare template the Democrats pull out every election cycle. The fact is, had those CEOs continued doing business by the tried and true criterion for granting mortgages, we would have had NO problem. (Almost identical to the Iraq War "runup". The Dems demand adherence to their sacred UN, but when President Bush took action after the UN was repeatedly scoffed at and disobeyed, he was called a runaway cowboy. Cost of doing business.)

There were, of course, CEOs who made fortunes. Some, like Mr. Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae during the years in question, was found guilty of cooking the books to show better profit/loss numbers, jacking up his bonuses in the process. He had to pay the fine of over $32 million. (Unfortunately, crime sometimes pays. His overall bonuses were over $60 million.) Were Obama elected president, there would be a very good chance Mr. Raines would be his Treasury Secretary. True.

Re taxes: You reveal a dirty secret! Many, many people promised a tax break by Obama pay NO taxes already. Ever hear of the Earned Income Tax Credit? It's a new name for welfare. The fact is, almost all taxes are paid by the top few percent of earners. This talk is more classic class warfare, stoking resentment. The fact is that income redistribution only keeps the lower classes low, in need of said payouts, in need of their Democrat "masters".

Tax cuts increase revenue coming into the govt. Under Reagan, the $$ coming into the treasury doubled. However, the Congress holds the power of the purse, not the president, and the Congress during the Reagan years spent $1.82 for every dollar that came in. Hence the deficits.

Democrats don't care that the revenue would double with tax breaks. They care more for redistribution of wealth. The needy are their power base, and if the needy become self sufficient, they'll be out of power.

An educated populace is the enemy of tyranny. I would not be ashamed by any perceived niavete on your part; your common sense has left you heads above most political junkies/KIAs.

(KIA = Know It All)

Dawno said:

moving to Hardcore since it appears this will continue to be a back and forth justification of one's own posts to each other than actually about the topic.

Click to expand...

Did you notice how threads moved here slowly die and decay?

Well, I am going to post one final time on the subject. The list comes from official McCain's site.
And there are other updates.

So, after all the dust settles in this thread, I have a question for yall:
Which is better -- the supposed expert that makes a serious face and then lies/exaggerates or the neophyte who dances around the questions with a smile?

dmytryp said:

So, after all the dust settles in this thread, I have a question for yall:
Which is better -- the supposed expert that makes a serious face and then lies/exaggerates or the neophyte who dances around the questions with a smile?

Click to expand...

I think I'm definitely better than Bravo.

Does that help?

Depends.

If one of them was going to be my surgeon, I'd want the expert.

Then again, if one of them was going to defend me in court, I'd want the expert.

Actually, if you replaced the words "Which is better" with the words "Which would you choose for a very serious, complicated, and important job" (which would be more accurate in this case), then I'd choose the first, hands down.

Especially when you consider that, in this case, the neophyte ALSO lied/exaggerated, when she chose to answer a question at all.

Monkey said:

Depends.

If one of them was going to be my surgeon, I'd want the expert.

Then again, if one of them was going to defend me in court, I'd want the expert.

Actually, if you replaced the words "Which is better" with the words "Which would you choose for a very serious, complicated, and important job" (which would be more accurate in this case), then I'd choose the first, hands down.

Especially when you consider that, in this case, the neophyte ALSO lied/exaggerated, when she chose to answer a question at all.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Apparently the fact that the supposed expert should have known the things he lied/exagerrated/didn't know about is lost on you.
Oh, and I'll remind you both this reply the next time you promote Obama vs. McCain.

Lol. An article on the subject from a more "respectable" source.
I really loved the two following quotes:

In the popular media wisdom, Sarah Palin is the neophyte who knows nothing about foreign policy while Joe Biden is the savvy diplomatic pro. Then what are we to make of Mr. Biden's fantastic debate voyage last week when he made factual claims that would have got Mrs. Palin mocked from New York to Los Angeles?

Click to expand...

We think the word "lie" is overused in politics today, having become a favorite of the blogosphere and at the New York Times. So we won't say Mr. Biden was deliberately making events up when he made these and other false statements. Perhaps he merely misspoke. In any case, Mrs. Palin may not know as much about the world as Mr. Biden does, but at least most of what she knows is true.

Click to expand...

Ah, but you see, Obama vs McCain is more like Dougie Howser vs an old surgeon with a lot of awards but who is no longer performing like he used to.

I'm questioning the old guy's vision. I'm going with the up-and-comer.



Seriously, in the McCain/Obama debate, you didn't hear Obama saying he wasn't going to answer questions. Obama doesn't stick to canned answers. He has a much more thorough and nuanced understanding of the situations our country faces.


* A joke isn't funny once you explain the punchline, but I don't want people to think I'm attacking McCain based on age. If anyone thinks that and wants a pedantic explanation of my metaphor, they can highlight the area below:

Obama is relatively new and inexperienced but shows a lot of promise. McCain used to be a man who I could support; a man I thought had vision and principles (well, as far as politicians go, anyway). But now, he's nothing like he used to be, and I'm questioning the direction he'd take the country.

Monkey said:

Seriously, in the McCain/Obama debate, you didn't hear Obama saying he wasn't going to answer questions. Obama doesn't stick to canned answers. He has a much more thorough and nuanced understanding of the situations our country faces.

Click to expand...

1. This was about Palin/Biden debate
2. You've got to be kidding about Obama not sticking to canned answers. His whole rhetoric and plans are standard liberal rhetoric and plans. I have no problem with you liking his stances, but to say he showed some kind of deep understanding of things is giving him waaay too much credit.

dmytryp said:

1. This was about Palin/Biden debate
2. You've got to be kidding about Obama not sticking to canned answers. His whole rhetoric and plans are standard liberal rhetoric and plans. I have no problem with you liking his stances, but to say he showed some kind of deep understanding of things is giving him waaay too much credit.

Click to expand...

Oh please, McCain stuck to his canned answers plenty of time. His whole rhetoric and plans are standard Republican rhetoric and plans.

So what are we arguing about anyway? It seems really pointless to pick on one candidate when the other is doing exactly the same thing.

This was about Palin/Biden debate

Click to expand...

Yes, but I was responding to this:

Oh, and I'll remind you both this reply the next time you promote Obama vs. McCain.

Click to expand...

and explaining why I felt your statement about the "expert" and the "neophyte" applied to Biden/Palin but not to Obama/McCain.

You've got to be kidding about Obama not sticking to canned answers.

Click to expand...

There's a biiiiig difference between Obama and Palin. Obama understands the issues well enough that he can write his own speeches...even the parts on domestic or foreign policy. Yes, he plans out what he's going to say ahead of time, but he's not parroting his "tutors" or speechwriters.

Palin is being tutored like crazy, her speeches repeat and much of them were written before the writers even knew who McCain was going to pick for VP. I'm not saying that having a speech writer write for you is bad...my point is that the ideas she espouses aren't her own, and her execution leaves me to believe that she doesn't understand the full depth of what she's saying. When she didn't want to answer a question, she didn't talk about the issue in general terms while failing to get specific (as both McCain and Obama did) - she just said, basically, that she didn't want to talk about that and went into clearly rehearsed speeches.

When asked to defend something she'd said, she said the media would sort it out...very shortly after blasting the media for their "filters". If it were Obama, McCain, or Biden, they would have provided their own back up, rather than leaving to an institution they had such issue with.

maestrowork said:

Oh please, McCain stuck to his canned answers plenty of time. His whole rhetoric and plans are standard Republican rhetoric and plans.

So what are we arguing about anyway? It seems really pointless to pick on one candidate when the other is doing exactly the same thing.

Click to expand...

Ray, are you deliberately answering the last post without reading the whole conversation?
When did I ever claim McCain was original? I specifically answered the claim that "Obama doesn't stick to canned answers".

Monkey said:

Yes, but I was responding to this:



and explaining why I felt your statement about the "expert" and the "neophyte" applied to Biden/Palin but not to Obama/McCain.

Click to expand...

Ok. Though I disagree with your assesment (which is fine)

Monkey said:

There's a biiiiig difference between Obama and Palin. Obama understands the issues well enough that he can write his own speeches...even the parts on domestic or foreign policy. Yes, he plans out what he's going to say ahead of time, but he's not parroting his "tutors" or speechwriters.

Click to expand...

This is pure and unadulterated opinion on your part. I disagree. Most of his speeches and plans repeat standard liberal rhetoric and nothing he ever said showed me he had any kind of deep insight (which is, of course, only my opinion). In fact, to the contrary, I think his statements on foreign policy over time show that he "doesn't get it" (again my opinion).

I've stumbled on an article (most of it has nothing to do with the thread) and remembered people here claiming Palin outright saying she won't answer questions. I am curious where did you get this, because this article (relying on a full transcript gives another picture)

Unlike Tom and Dionne's misunderstanding, Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi's misquotation of Palin can't be chalked up to superficiality. Her Sunday column included the following correction of her Friday column:

My column on the vice presidential debate incorrectly quoted Sarah Palin. Here is the correct quote: "And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people."​

The correction is a bit of a misquote too. Palin actually said, "I may not answer the questions the way that either the moderator or you want to hear," as the official transcript confirms; some media transcripts missed the two italicized words.
Although the Web version of Vennochi's Friday column has the almost-correct quote, we were able to retrieve the original column from Factiva. Here is how Vennochi quoted Palin:

The strategy for John McCain's running mate was clear. Be folksy and perky. Her answers were sprinkled with "darn right," and "betcha." Early on, Palin told moderator Gwen Ifill she could ask whatever she wanted; "I'm gonna answer whatever I want."​

The most charitable explanation for this is that Vennochi, making notes during the debate, wrote down her interpretation of what Palin said and then mistook it for an actual quote.
Oh, the Sunday column that includes the correction is headlined, "Instead of Hype, How About Honesty?" Good question!

Click to expand...

I bolded the most pertinent part.

It wasn't just that she SAID she might not answer the way people wanted to hear. She outright avoided question after question. The transcript is here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/index.html

Here's a few of Palin's question dodging highlights:

IFILL: Governor, please if you want to respond to what he said about Sen. McCain's comments about health care?

PALIN: I would like to respond about the tax increases.

Click to expand...

Yes she talked about taxes for a while. No, she never responded to the health care question.

IFILL: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?

PALIN: I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.

Click to expand...

That was the quote your post questioned. The issue wasn't so much that she said it, but that she said it in conjunction with answering the question she wanted to answer instead of the one that was asked.

IFILL: Thank you, Senator.

Now... I want to get -- try to get you both to answer a question that neither of your principals quite answered when my colleague, Jim Lehrer, asked it last week, starting with you, Sen. Biden.

What promises -- given the events of the week, the bailout plan, all of this, what promises have you and your campaigns made to the American people that you're not going to be able to keep?

Click to expand...

Biden answers. The question is then put to Palin:

IFILL: Governor?

PALIN: Well, the nice thing about running with John McCain is I can assure you he doesn't tell one thing to one group and then turns around and tells something else to another group, including his plans that will make this bailout plan, this rescue plan, even better.

I want to go back to the energy plan, though, because this is -- this is an important one that Barack Obama, he voted for in '05.

Click to expand...

Palin goes on to talk about oil companies in Alaska and how she dealt with them. She never answers the question.

At another point, responding to an allegation by Biden:

IFILL: Gov. Palin, is that so?

PALIN: That is not so, but because that's just a quick answer, I want to talk about, again, my record on energy versus your ticket's energy ticket, also.

Click to expand...

And once again she's off...and off topic.

Monkey said:

It wasn't just that she SAID she might not answer the way people wanted to hear. She outright avoided question after question. The transcript is here:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/index.html

Here's a few of Palin's question dodging highlights:



Yes she talked about taxes for a while. No, she never responded to the health care question.



That was the quote your post questioned. The issue wasn't so much that she said it, but that she said it in conjunction with answering the question she wanted to answer instead of the one that was asked.



Biden answers. The question is then put to Palin:



Palin goes on to talk about oil companies in Alaska and how she dealt with them. She never answers the question.

At another point, responding to an allegation by Biden:



And once again she's off...and off topic.

Click to expand...

I never said that she didn't dodge questions or danced around them, but there were claims in this very thread that she outright refused to answer, which is untrue.

Monkey said:

And once again she's off...and off topic.

Click to expand...

It's amazing how you don't really notice during the actual debate how she goes off on a tangent. Sh'e quite slippery; she managed to convince sone people that she actually won the debate -- when she hardly debated at all.
I blame the moderator for not reprimanding her; but then the McCain camp would have called her mean and biased, no doubt, and talk about her book etc.

aruna said:

It's amazing how you don't really notice during the actual debate how she goes off on a tangent. Sh'e quite slippery; she managed to convince sone people that she actually won the debate -- when she hardly debated at all.
I blame the moderator for not reprimanding her; but then the McCain camp would have called her mean and biased, no doubt, and talk about her book etc.

Click to expand...

If you want to appear impartial you should've also added:
It's amazing how Biden managed to convince some people he knows what he is talking about when he hardly did.
I blame the moderator for not going after his bogus statements, but then the Obama camp would have called her biased and fearmonger.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-goldberg7-2008oct07,0,6074234.column

Now, Palin had her own problems. She failed to answer direct questions directly. She offered up some obviously canned one-liners.

But here's the difference. Palin is supposed to be everything Biden isn't, according to liberal pundits and mainstream reporters alike. For weeks they've been saying she's ill-prepared, uninformed and lacks the requisite experience. But that criticism is also an excuse of sorts.

Biden has no excuse. He's been in the majors for nearly 40 years, and yet he sounds like a bizarro-world Chauncey Gardner. The famous simpleton from Jerzy Kosinski's "Being There" (played by Peter Sellers in the film) offered terse aphorisms that were utterly devoid of specific content but nonetheless seemed to describe reality accurately. Biden is the reverse: He offers a logorrheic farrago of "specifics" that have no connection to our corner of the space-time continuum.

In short, he just makes stuff up. But he does it with passionate, self-important intensity. He's like a politician in a movie with a perfect grasp of a world that doesn't exist. He's not an expert, he just plays one on TV.

Click to expand...

Got to love the bolded part

No. When the moderator asks a question and she responds that she wants to talk about something else, that's pretty forthright about not answering what was asked.

And really, can you link us to something other than blogs? Your article in post 393 was a blog that was quoting another blog that took issue with another blog. Your "proof" earlier in this thread: another blog. Your last post: another blog.

Blogs are just people's OPINIONS. They don't prove anything. There's no reason to take their opinions any more seriously than yours or mine; posting a blog to back up your statement or opinion is the equivalent of saying, "Someone out there agrees with me." I'm sure you'll always be able to find SOMEONE who agrees with you, no matter what you're saying.

Monkey said:

No. When the moderator asks a question and she responds that she wants to talk about something else, that's pretty forthright about not answering what was asked.

And really, can you link us to something other than blogs? Your article in post 393 was a blog that was quoting another blog that took issue with another blog. Your "proof" earlier in this thread: another blog. Your last post: another blog.

Blogs are just people's OPINIONS. They don't prove anything. There's no reason to take their opinions any more seriously than yours or mine; posting a blog to back up your statement or opinion is the equivalent of saying, "Someone out there agrees with me." I'm sure you'll always be able to find SOMEONE who agrees with you, no matter what you're saying.

Click to expand...

Blogs many times do a better job of telling you the truth than newspapers. And I am not clear what you want, 90% of what is being said in the media (not to mention here) is opinion. The question is whether that opinion is backed up. I try to post opinions that also give links to where they get the info.

Dmytryp, I can say that cats are disgusting creatures and link you to a factual site about maintaining litterboxes. The info on cleaning litterboxes may be accurate; my broad interpretation about cats in general is my opinion and not at all newsworthy. Anyone who quotes me to back up their own belief that cats are disgusting aren't proving anything other than that there are people who agree with them.

Apply that to politics, and you have my point.