Those were Sarah's last words and they should resonate with every American, because if McCain and Palin win, we'll not have to remember "back when we were free." (I'm emotional, tears here, so bear with me...)
here are some of Z's thoughts........
Did you notice how, for the first hour or so, Palin didn't get to respond? He would be asked a question, he'd answer, then she'd give her answer, then Gwen Ifill would say "Senator Biden...?" and he got to rebut. Toward the end, FINALLY, she started saying "Governor Palin...?" and Sarah got to rebut. It was infuriating the first full hour. I wonder if you noticed. My poor Mr. Z kept flipping out "But they didn't let HER come back..!!" Once, Ifill said "Senator Biden, you may talk about nukes now, OR you can go back to Afghanistan..." REALLY? WHY NOT PALIN?
Biden said he thought the war should last ten years, so WHY is he wanting to pull out NOW? Sarah didn't get to that!!!
WHY is Biden STILL running against BUSH? Do you REALIZE how many times Bush and McCain have DISagreed? Obama played this card, too, remember?
"John McCain and I are UNAPOLOGETIC Americans!" YEAH, Sarah!! One of my favorite lines of the event.
What really made Mr and Mrs Z laugh was when Biden said "The surge will not work in Afghanistan. We need MORE TROOPS in Afghanistan!" WHAT? Isn't THAT a 'surge'?
Um. Folks? Remember what Biden said about Mike Mansfield? "Don't question the motive.."? WHAT? MUSTN'T we question the motive? Tell me how you feel about that? of COURSE, the motive is important, that's not a reason to be BIPARTISAN? It's ALL ABOUT THE MOTIVE, is it not? I'm willing to hear disagreement..tell me!
Biden BLAMED McCAIN for voting against the nuclear test ban treaty. OF COURSE, McCain was RIGHT! We don't want to limit OUR tests~!! And THAT, my friends, was the meaning behind this. Mr. Z was in, shall we say, a "related business?" and knows that was NUTS of Biden to say. We CAN'T have a nuclear test ban treaty. WE would be the only ones banning! Have you seen when Iran or N. Korea was trustworthy enough to believe? As far as McC voting against our soldiers, how COULD he when a "get out now" caveat was in there? EARMARKS with a WAR?
BIG TIME NOTE HERE: Biden said Obama had asked him to BE THERE FOR EVERY JUDGMENT! WHY? Not ready, Mr. O?
Biden's had 35 years in the Senate. Sarah's been around five weeks in the national public spotlight. She did PRETTY DAMNED WELL, folks!!
Mikey from Indiana (a beloved friend), just called and called Sarah "competent, bright, able, effective, likable, and genuine" I think so, too. That's what she had do to. God love 'er.
My friend's boyfriend called her tonight.....he's liberal. Not far left, but liberal....he said "Wow........better than I thought..quite a good job!"
Priscilla called.........Biden looked "dusty". Yup, in every way....interesting term.
She looked like she ENJOYED it......... amazing. Authentic. Confident. What a woman.
UPDATE: Yahoo Homepage has a picture of Palin looking tough and Biden weeping and the caption is this: "Emotional VP debate
Sarah Palin gets tough on Iraq, while Joe Biden chokes up over personal tragedy"
AH...I see, MSM...PALIN is TOUGH (too tough for a REAL WOMAN, perhaps?) and Biden is soft and tender. The new msm memo? Paint HER as the tough guy, paint HIM as the sensitive one. I love the media. (not)
z
99 comments:
Palin was indeed a winner. Through her, Americans are reinvigorated for the second time. She did not convince any Marxists … but I do think she has influenced independents and undecided.
Biden was interesting, and of course, very partisan. On the one hand, he repudiated Bush Preemption Policy, but then said he favors interventionism. Meanwhile, Senator Thompson said Biden misrepresented McCain’s voting record. Misrepresentation is another word for “lying.”
I’m encouraged.
I felt like she was talking to the people, Biden was talking to Gwin.
I thought she was really talking and connecting to the people, too, JM.
Mustang, as Rich Galen at MULLINGS.COM wisely says tonight in his column "A tie is a Palin win".
Somebody should remind Obama and Biden they are not RUNNING against Bush. I'm hoping many Americans at home were saying the same thing I kept saying to the screen (well, not EVERYTHING I said, that wouldn't be nice!!!LOL!)
I missed Thompson. I hope they'll show that again.
I'm more encouraged than I was at 5:00, that's for SURE.
Well, Sarah reminded him Bush was not who was running.
When she said something to the effect of , his looking back, etc.
She also made comments about the pundits looking at every word, comment, etc and parsing things.
Loved how she closed..rallying AMERICANS to save their country , to keep their country and how great this place is.
Biden of course went back to doom and gloom.
Loved how she would say, awwww..JOE...say it ain't so.
WVDOTTR
I think it's great how the bloggers come up with some very interesting points on this debate. I am listening to the tv in the background and isn't it amusing how polls over on CNN show Biden winning and polls on Fox have Sarah winning?
Yes Z, she does connect with the people.
Sarah Palin has a presence that can't be learned. It comes to her naturally. A huge attribute, that few enjoy. When I say she shines, that's what I'm referring to.
I believe she won, that It was not a tie. When Biden began going into details of bills, you know people's eyes glazed over.
The best part were her references to America, freedom, and the people. It's so clear she loves this country and believes in it.
Pris
Steve! Did you see CNN before the debate?
Donna Brazile: "Gwen Ifill can NEVER be questioned on her integrity. She hasn't even written the Obama chapter in her book yet!"
Anderson Cooper: "well, so this is all Republican politics, right?"
Donna Brazile "Yes, it IS, Anderson!"
End of story.
ARE THEY KIDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDING?
IMAGINE if a Republican journalist (do they exist!?) was moderating after having written a book glowing about mcC? Ya, right! LOL!
Great point about Sen. Blowhard saying he will be with Sen. Messiah Barack in the room for every decision! The blind leading the blind! Sarah won becase she took over the debate. She did not answer the questions the way Miss Ifill wanted and really took it to Sen. Blowhard. YEAH! Now, Sen. McCain needs to do the same thing. Hit and hit hard. If Team Obama can not take it, they do NOT deserve to be in the White House.
It looks like the Republican ticket is 2-0 in the debates.
BTW, Brit Hume said he thought Gwen Ifill was fair. I thought Biden was denied a chance to make a necessaty response to several of Palin’s unjustified attacks.
Z: "...or we will remember back when we were FREE!"
Those were Sarah's last words and they should resonate with every American, because if McCain and Palin win, we'll not have to remember "back when we were free." (I'm emotional, tears here, so bear with me...)
Actually, Ms Palin’s last words were: It was Ronald Reagan who said that freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We don't pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we're going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children's children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free. We will fight for it, and there is only one man in this race who has really ever fought for you, and that's Sen. John McCain.
Biden’s last words were: You know, in the neighborhood I grew up in, it was all about dignity and respect. A neighborhood like most of you grew up in. And in that neighborhood, it was filled with women and men, mothers and fathers who taught their children if they believed in themselves, if they were honest, if they worked hard, if they loved their country, they could accomplish anything. We believed it, and we did. That's why Barack Obama and I are running, to re-establish that certitude in our neighborhoods. Ladies and gentlemen, my dad used to have an expression. He'd say, "champ, when you get knocked down, get up."Well, it's time for America to get up together. America's ready, you're ready, I'm ready, and Barack Obama is ready to be the next president of the United States of America. May God bless all of you, and most of all, for both of us, selfishly, may God protect our troops.
McCain said last year he agreed with a poll that 55 percent of Americans believe the U.S. Constitution establishes a Christian nation. "I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation," he said.
I am an American, too, and I remember when we were free to believe as we chose in a secular nation.
Biden won on deep knowledge of the issues and the ability to articulate them cogently; Palin won on adorability.
It was definitely one of the most civil debates I've seen in a long time. I think both did very well. They both scored well in relation to what they wanted to accomplish. I think Gwenn Ifill was about as fair, overall, as anyone could have been. With all that said-----I think Sarah Palin won, not by a landslide, not by just barely, but by a decent amount. I think what she won was the respect and admiration of millions of viewers. I feel confident that she swayed millions of undecideds closer to the Republican ticket. Now it's John McCains turn to reel them in the rest of the way. I disagree that he won his debate. At best it was a tie. He better do better in the next two. I expect to see the polls swing back to McCain/Palin within the next couple of days and hopefully continue in the right direction.
WHY is Biden STILL running against BUSH? Do you REALIZE how many times Bush and McCain have DISagreed? Obama played this card, too, remember?
That's because Bush is "damaged goods", politically at the moment; anything they can say that will associate Republicans to "more of the same", will lose us the Election.
Unfortunately, the narrative's been writ on Iraq, that we were lied into war, that we took our eye off the ball, and that it was a disastrous misadventure.
It's too close to November to swing that perception around. I'm sick of listening to CNN and their pundits talk about it, and how Biden's superior on the foreign policy front.
psi bond wrote:
I am an American, too, and I remember when we were free to believe as we chose in a secular nation.
You don't seem to get McCain's point: We are a Christian nation- founded upon Judeo-Christian values and traditions- with a secular government.
wordsmith: You don't seem to get McCain's point: We are a Christian nation- founded upon Judeo-Christian values and traditions- with a secular government.
McCain’s point was to reject the historical understanding of our country’s foundation as the revolutionary product of secular enlightenment thought, and, instead, embrace the notion that a powerful voting bloc of evangelicals piously promote of America as being a traditional outgrowth of Judaeo-Christian thinking.
In denial, you are putting words, wordsmith, in McCain’s mouth. He said, “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.” Not a Judaeo-Christian nation, and not a nation with values that are Judaeo-Christian. The Constitution, setting itself up as the supreme law of the land, established this country as one whose only legitimate law derives from we the people. Not from any god. In fact, it explicitly forbids any religious test for public officials.
In Judaism and Christianity, laws come from a supreme god. The fundamental law in the Bible is the Ten Commandments, which demands worship of a particular god, the God of Israel, and keeping the sabbath holy, and forbids the making of idols, and taking the name of the lord in vain. The Tenth Commandment forbidding the coveting of your neighbor’s wife, or his workers, or his cattle, or anything that is your neighbor’s, insofar as this is confined within the mind, intrudes on freedom of thought. (The rest are civil laws found in almost all human cultures.) These religious laws have no counterpart in current U.S. federal law. Indeed, legislating such actions would be a clear violation of the letter and intention of the Constitution. The 603 other commandments in the Torah are no part of our American legal tradition.
A lot of the media seems to have realized that they underestimated her. Now it could get interesting.
Go Saracuda!
side note i say the tough guy promotion works for her z. i think america likes the pretty but tough persona she exudes. so i say bring that on.... biden got the spin from the media of "knowing" so much more because of his long explanatory answers. yet as you point out what was said in those responses was pure dribble!!!
E.J. Dionne:
Early in last night's vice-presidential debate, Sarah Palin said that she might not answer the questions as moderator Gwen Ifill posed them. This was the Alaska governor's way of saying she was going to stick to the talking points she had stuffed into her head, no matter what the subject.
When Palin described John McCain's health-care plan, she talked about his offer of a $5,000 tax credit so families could buy insurance. She failed to mention that McCain would pay for the credit by taxing existing insurance benefits. Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden -- politely -- pounced on her omission, warning that McCain's plan could lead millions to lose their insurance coverage. Palin didn't come back to defend her running mate.
Nor did she come back when Biden challenged her false claims about how many times Barack Obama had voted for tax increases. Palin just plowed forward, piling one attack on top of another, with leavening references to "Joe Six-Pack" and "hockey moms."
Oh, yes, she did correct Biden on one thing. When he said the Republican energy slogan is "drill, drill, drill," she quickly reminded him that "the chant is drill, baby, drill." Thanks for clearing that up.
Last night's debate took place at the moment when a majority of American voters had decided that Palin was unprepared to be president if she were called upon to assume the office. Surveys by The Post and ABC News and by the Pew Research Center both found that doubts about Palin have risen sharply since the beginning of September.
The key to understanding how McCain chose Palin as his running mate was provided by the New York Times last weekend when it described an episode in which he "tossed $100 chips around a hot craps table." Americans are increasingly uneasy about the gamble they might take by putting Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Expectations for Palin were so low that the mere fact that she managed to keep talking and to keep assailing Obama will be rated as a great victory by McCain's lieutenants. But it was Biden who knew what he was talking about, who could engage in argument and who showed he actually understood the issues. In recent interviews with CBS anchor Katie Couric, Palin came off as profoundly uninformed, as someone who had given little thought to the issues that will matter. Nothing Palin did last night changed that. Those rooting for her were relieved. Those who doubted her readiness going in were not persuaded by her endless repetition of the word "maverick."
Palin has also brought out the very worst in McCain, forcing him to -- and I do not use this word lightly -- lie about her. In an interview broadcast Wednesday, National Public Radio's Steve Inskeep asked McCain if there would be "an occasion where you could imagine turning to Governor Palin for advice in a foreign policy crisis?"
McCain replied: "I've turned to her advice many times in the past. I can't imagine turning to Senator Obama or Senator Biden, because they've been wrong."
" Many times in the past?" McCain met Palin only twice before he selected her. What McCain said could not be true. And would anyone who listened to her last night really consult Palin on foreign policy?
This week, McCain's backers signaled their fears that Palin would fail by trying to discredit the debate in advance. Although it has been known at least since July that Gwen Ifill was writing a book on "Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," the usual right-wing attack squad waited until two days before the debate to mount a campaign to the effect that Ifill's book project turned her into a biased moderator. In her measured questioning, Ifill showed that the attack was nonsense.
The core issue, of course, is the contrast between how Obama and McCain chose their running mates. Say what you will about Joe Biden -- and last night, he was far from being either the gaffe machine or the windbag so many predicted would appear on stage -- no one loses sleep at the idea of his being in the Oval Office. Obama picked a vice president more likely to help him govern the country than win the chance to do so.
As for McCain, he found himself in a political hole and threw the dice with Palin. At the time of her selection, voters were often compared with "American Idol" watchers who put personality and stage presence above everything else. But it turns out that Americans take the presidency very seriously. And surviving 90 minutes on a stage with Biden did not transform Palin into a plausible president.
Biden..sensitive?! lol
After Palin started the "hockey mom" cliche nonsense I thought Biden scored when he pointed out that he was a single father after his wife's traffic death.
He should have said he just took the weight and didn't whine about it like a Republican.
Listening to talk radio this morning there was not a rush to support Palin and Biden did well keeping McCain stapled to our current president Chucklenuts.
One of my favorite lines was:
“There you go again”, when referring to the Bush administration
I was concerned that Palin was so confused about the Afghan situation.
Palin thinks our commander in Afghanistan is someone named "McClellan." It is, I believe, McKiernan. And Palin is DEAD WRONG. He absolutely said that tribal involvement in Afghanistan COIN strategy would not work.
No Palin thinks that all we have to do in Afghanistan is another surge, which has not been particularly effective.
Different tribal structure
Different economy
Different terrain
Different infrastructure ...
but all you have to do is wear a flag pin and say surge and the R's will buy it.
Hell, even a fine arts major can tell that Iraq and Afghanistan are completely different beasts. I'm surprised you military folks missed it.
I thought she did very well,but MSM is really doing a job on her this morning. I used to think only NPR was a direct mouthpiece for the Dems. No longer.
The news networks have also begun anointing Obama as the winner in the election.
Costa Rica is looking better and better.
She failed to mention that McCain would pay for the credit by taxing existing insurance benefits.
-------------------------
She also mentioned that the "credit" goes directly to insurance companies (and their huge overhead). The hockey moms think they are actually going to keep the cash.
You don't seem to get McCain's point: We are a Christian nation- founded upon Judeo-Christian values and traditions- with a secular government.
-------------------
The Judeo-Christian phrase didn't even exist in the eighteenth century.
It was hatched during the McCarthy era.
Can you explain what it means in 50 words or less.
Ducky,
"The Judeo-Christian phrase didn't even exist in the eighteenth century.
Can you explain what it means in 50 words or less."
The total and complete opposite of your world view which you are allowed to believe because many good people fought for you to have that right. Try being grateful.
Could you be more specific, jm?
Does it mean that if I do not conform to an evangelical world view I am not a citizen?
Oh and as for being grateful. I am very grateful to people like my father who fought in WW II and the folks of his greatest generation.
As for Grenada, Lebanon, Kuwait ... no, they did nothing for my freedom except extend silly cliches.
Indiana Mike here. The substance arguments between the candidates are important only to those informed on current politics. For the average viewer, who does not follow political events on a regular basis (and are therefore easy prey for slogans, sound bites and advertisements), it comes down to credibility and trustworthiness. Obama is a snake oil salesman, Biden a little less so, but Palin succeeded in showing that she is not. She wins the debate because she appears as someone Americans can feel good about. I am a cynic about politicians (McCain included), but I believe her.
I you watch the hand shaking with I fill after the debate, she tells Biden he did great, just great.
I noticed that the mike picked that up. Ifill says to Biden "You did great....." Of course we know she is a partisan, so what else is new. I believe, as Rush points out, that they feel that only the right is partisan because what the left believes is "mainstream." In the USSR, communism was mainstream. In N. Korea today, totalitarianism is mainstream. In America today, idiotic political correctness and atheism (or at least, agnosticism) are becoming mainstream. Z is absolutely right to highlight what Palin said about our freedoms being lost.
WHY ISN'T BRISTOL PALIN IN SCHOOL?
psi Bond raises a lot of issues for "his side." Some have weight, some do not. Bottom line: Obama is a fraud. Biden did a credible job of depicting Obama as something he is not. He is not a man who believes in traditional American values or the values that made America a great nation. Biden would have you believe that Obama has America's best interests at heart. On the contrary, he believes in a "change" away from America's interests and into a new direction. Not the kind that will restore America's wholesomeness as the "leader of the free world" but change that will render America an "equal" partner in a "redistributed," global, Socialist order. Obama does not believe in American exceptualism, but he does believe in American national guilt. In that, and more than Biden could ever outdo, he is living in the past. And from this, he is intent on punishing America for all he believes it has done.
I am not concerned with the technicality of the various "votes" each candidate had made as much as the general trend. Obama's whole history (meager as it is, thankfully) is a leftist, radical agenda. His change will be in that direction.
Ducky, I said you were allowed to believe it. No you don't have to be an evangelical to be a citizen, especially since that term has only been around for the last century or so.
Great debate quotes:
"A nuclear war, that's the be-all and the end-all. That's bad. A lot of people, gone."
--- Alaska Spice
Anonymous..thank you. Very well said.
Biden: "A surge won't work in Afghanistan..we need MORE TROOPS."
ugh
Just more proof of what our Democrats are trying to do. If anyone thinks this isn't either very uninformed and STUPID and dangerous, you're voting for Obama because you know this is all very well planned..."Get that economy down, we need this to win" Reid is stupid and wrong and frightening (and they say Palin isn't ready? WOW)
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Several big life insurance stocks fell sharply Thursday, dragged down by jitters about their role in the credit crisis and fears sparked by a comment from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Wednesday about a potential bankruptcy in the industry.
"We don't have a lot of leeway on time. One of the individuals in the caucus today talked about a major insurance company. A major insurance company -- one with a name that everyone knows that's on the verge of going bankrupt. That's what this is all about," Reid said prior to the Senate's approval of the $700 billion bailout bill.
Steven Schwartz, an analyst who covers insurance companies for Raymond James & Associates, said that even before Reid made his bankruptcy comment, investors were growing worried about life insurers' exposure to real estate as well as "secondary exposure" via investments in troubled finance firms like Lehman Bros, Wachovia and Washington Mutual.
But the comment from Reid clearly caused even more fear.
"Harry Reid didn't help any," Schwartz said.
New York-based MetLife (MET, Fortune 500) was one of the hardest-hit insurers Thursday. Its stock plunged nearly 16%. Thursday's drop comes after a 14% decline on Wednesday.
In light of this, MetLife issued a statement Thursday afternoon to address Reid's comments.
"The statement yesterday by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does not apply to MetLife. MetLife is financially sound and has high ratings from all of the major insurance ratings agencies. MetLife is fully able to meet all its obligations," the company said.
Shares of Hartford Financial Services (HIG, Fortune 500) fell about 33%, following a 7% decline on Wednesday. The stock has lost more than half of its value this week.
Jeffrey Schuman, analyst for Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, wrote in a report that the sell-off stems from worries about the company's third quarter results, which will be released later this month.
Schuman estimated that Hartford has "likely" experienced credit losses of up to $800 million from preferred stocks and debt tied to Lehman, AIG and Washington Mutual.
These concerns prompted Fitch Ratings to impose a "negative outlook" on the company Monday, raising more concerns about the company's need for capital.
Schuman wrote in a note that the recent drop was "likely overdone" but added that Hartford will face "difficult operating headwinds and ongoing credit losses" in the near-term.
A call to Hartford for comment Thursday was not immediately returned. But on Wednesday, the company said that its "core operating businesses are performing well and our liquidity remains strong."
A spokesman for Sen. Reid backtracked a bit Thursday and said that the senator was not aware of any company being in danger of bankruptcy.
"Senator Reid is not personally aware of any particular company being on the verge of bankruptcy. He has no special knowledge about [a bankruptcy] nor has he talked to any insurance company officials," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Sen. Reid, in an email to CNNMoney.com.
"Rather, his comments were meant to refer to the conditions in the financial sector generally. He regrets any confusion his comments may have caused," Manley added.
Still, shares of other top life insurers also fell sharply Thursday. Paris-based AXA (AXA) dropped 12.5%%.
Other insurers -- including Canadian based Manulife Financial Corp. (MFC), which owns John Hancock, Prudential Financial (PRU, Fortune 500) and Principal Financial Group (PFG, Fortune 500) -- also slipped, falling 6%, 11% and 15.5% respectively.
Schwartz of Raymond James said some of the concerns about insurers are overblown. He said that, generally speaking, insurers haven't invested in the types of "truly toxic assets" that have led to huge losses for some investment banks and commercial banks.
He described the failure of AIG, which lost billions of dollars on credit default swaps tied to subprime loans and was essentially taken over by the government in exchange for an $85 billion bridge loan, as "very atypical" for the insurance industry.
"The industry will get through this," said Schwartz. "[But] that's not to say there won't be strains."
Regarding the subprime problem?
THIS YEAR, Bush's administration asked 17 times for reform of Freddie and Fanny.
Really, the only problem Palin had last night was not hammering on the truth....she never mentioned Franklin Raines (which would have stopped Biden in his $899 shoes), she didn't mention any of the lies Pelosi told during her speech before the first election. NOTHING.
Republicans don't fight hard enough. And we're going to really suffer for it.
William Jeffers is still acting like no frozen cash was found, Sandy Berger got a slap on the hand, Robt Byrd is a beloved ex KKK recruiter, Reid calls a sitting president a LOSER in a school, etc etc.........they get away with all this and SO SO SO much more. Because the media's in their bag. Anyone with a brain knows that.
So, Obama will probably win. I'm hearing there are Americans who don't even KNOW about Raines, about how he benefited financially from the National Black Caucus' presure on Fanny Mae's Mr. Mudd.......nothing. They don't KNOW, folks. We can't blame Americans who just aren't getting the truth.
Joe Biden’s outright lies during the debate:
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.
2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.
3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”
4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.
5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.
6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.
7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false
8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax.
9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.
10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.
11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.
12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.
13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”
14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.
But the msm does not care!th
Thanks so much, JM. There it is, right out there, clear and easy to understand, unless you have Obama colored glasses on.
I'm honestly thinking I'd be ashamed of myself if I was not fighting the bias of our American media. When Google drops article links because they detract from the PROM KING, the Left doesn't care. The left doesn't care about the truth, it's all about GET THIS ELECTION.
I was raised that the American people need the TRUTH, not opinion from page one to page 45. In Europe, opinion is still on the opinion pages, no matter how subtle the bias is..there's no place for it as NEWS.
We're drowning in leftist bias and partisanship and the left loves it. They think this IS America, what other KIND of America but this leftist nuthouse could allow itself to support a man of his beliefs?
A look at the fact checker for BOTH sides.
For some peoples' edification:
Fact check.org is not an un-biased org.
They have close ties to Soros' funded entities.
Indiana Mike got it right.
This was about showing who Sarah is, plain and simple .
All these whimpers about she should have this and that...
well, most people don't care about politics .
They tune in occasionally and make their judgements based on how THEY perceive what they are being exposed to.
This talk about Wall Street Greed , etc..is short hand for main street, old time USA...some of the high brow commentators might not like hearing it but in the real world which has all of us dumb old hicks, We get it.
Sarah wasn't talking to kiss the hind ends of the pundits, and I am speaking here about the blue blooded types on the right , too.
Sarah connected with the people.
So ..get over it.
WVDOTTR
Sarah Palin won...and won big! I've seen anything like this in American politics..since Ronald Reagan..."
She won and the Libs know it. No matter what CNN says!
Let then play games on Saturday night live.
The Libs are eating their hearts out today.
You don't need to post Yahoo pieces here, Ducky. We are not like the left which reads nothing but their venues; nor do we have the luxury of watching networks and cable stations expecting not to see leftist sentiment. We're drowning in it. Leftists should be ashamed of the dishonesty in our media today, and you know it.
I'm curious; how many pieces and comments do we have to write in our blogs to show you that nothing you could ever ever ever say would make us vote for such a man as Obama?........ NEVER, get it?
His background, his book's quotes about color and this country, his confusion and self-hate (READ the books), his wife's hate for America, his lies, his mischaracterization, his glib "I was inartful when i said that" that gets a total free pass by your media, his having an ego SO BIG and having so little REAL care about this country that he would sacrifice his sure win from picking HIllary so he could be PROM KING and lead America to SOCIALISM? He gave up that sure win whY???
If he REALLY cared and thought his ideas were the best for this country, wouldn't he have selected the shoe-in? Of course.
Except he's got LOTS of money, including that story about a fellow who has given $200 346 times? Did you see that? Eager to read the truth yet or too sure you've found YOUR MAN?! Soros sure did! Khalid Al Mansour sure did!
Ducky, it's naive for anyone to think Obama has our best interests at heart, or his tax breaks are only for the rich, or to think America will do well when our successful are taxed so high they can't buy or hire.
It's absolutely PIG STUPID to say "We need to tax corporations higher SO we can bring jobs back here"
ALL we ask is that you start learning and get socialist ideology out of your head and THEN vote. That's not too much to ask.
But, the Left's so crazed about abortion and gay marriage and EQUALITY OVER LIBERTY that I fear it's too late. For you and for our country.
I think Sarah did exactly what she had to do, show America that she wasn't a used car salesman like Joe Biden was.
Of course, She should have slapped Gwen FullofHerself's face after she shut down the Governor's extended comments with that smarmy and patronizingly elitist, "that's enough, dear..."
Excuse me? Dear??? Try GOVERNOR you third rate affirmative action Grubstreet HACK!
During the day, check the TV news and treat yourself to the lies of Pelosi and Hoyer..congratulating themselves on fixing the President's mistakes by passing this bailout bill! You can't make this stuff up, folks. Ya, they just added pork to it and IT'S BETTER> (thank God ACORN got nothing...I think Soros has enough money for them, don't you?!)
It's absolutely incredible. They will say ANYTHING in public at this point to make the economy seem even worse because the surge won. Can't fight the war? Let's make the Republicans look bad on the economy. Let's make sure America equates Bush with McCain. THe ONE SENATOR Bush had the most trouble with and people believe THIS?!! VERY sad.
I have never seen such lies and mischaracterizations.....and the NYTimes will back them up, although even they did reveal some of Obama's complicity in the F's. Amazing, but no other venues picked that up (SURPRISE!)
Well..this is American life. LIE.
It works.
They ought to rebroadcast the debates on YouTube as "Sarah, Uneditted". Mr. ducky would know all about an editors ability to create "illusions". In fact... you can find a LOT of them on YouTube. ;-)
FJ: "DEAR"? I hadn't noticed that.!! That's the BIG OPEN MINDED LEFT..all about CHOICE, unless it's not THEIR particular choice, all about FEMINISM until they are faced with femininity...all about GAY unless it happens to be a Republican who desires privacy, all about EQUALITY until someone disagrees.
"DEAR". wow. Did she add "DEAR" when she told Biden "You did well!" after the debate while the mics were stil up? no bias.
Did you treat yourself to the conversation at CNN about the Ifill book and how she had the audacity not to have discussed the book with the debate people and that they chose not to tell mcCain's people!?? "it's all politics" "she hasn't even WRITTEN the Obama chapter" "Nobody should question her integrity!"
Ya, like NOBODY should discuss MY FAMILY (Obama) AND WE DON'T!! (oh, wait...what about the Palins being 'swingers' and how her daughter gave birth to Trig, and on and on?..THAT's okay...that's not THE OBAMA ANOINTED FAMILY!!!!)
We Republicans just have to SHUT UP, folks.......The Dems are ALWAYS right, KNOWS what's best for us, and WILL GIVE IT TO US>........
get used to it.
"As for Grenada, Lebanon, Kuwait ... no, they did nothing for my freedom except extend silly cliches."
Ducky - Lebanon unfortunately, was a mistake. If we were going to go in, it should have been all the way or not at all, and President Reagan said it "was the worst day of his Presidency". An honest man.
If you think having Kuwait a satelite country of Iraq, with the possibility of Saudi Arabia becoming one as well, and Granada a satelite country of Communist Cuba in our hemisphere was desireable, you don't have the capability of seeing the big picture.
Beyond that, while you can't appreciate that the Kuwaitis and Granadans remained free because of our actions which were of minor cost to us, comparatively speaking, you illustrate what most of us here already know.
For you, It's all about Ducky.
Pris
(thank God ACORN got nothing)
What are you talking about Z. Didn't you see the first BAILOUT bill that passed last summer... the initial $300 BILLION that was supposed to solve the subprime bubble problem before another $700 BILLION became necessary?
ACORN, et al, got access to 10% of all the money that Fannie and Freddie will make into the forever distant future, NOT subject to the annual Congressional Budget Appropriation process... in other words, an unlimitted and indefinite blank check.
sorry, FJ. I was told that ACORN subsidies were taken out of this new bill that passed..??
z, additional amounts were removed from this plan - what was in the earlier plan remain.
as for your comment about nuclear testing, perhaps james madison said it best way back in 1788:
"How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?"
as we clearly can't take them at their word, we must be prepared to go against them , physically, should the need arise.
The National Housing Trust Fund which the earlier legislation established has been the Holy Grail for ACORN, and now that they've got it, they'll be looking to put more than one income stream into it... especially since all the money doesn't start "automatically" flowing in for three more years (it's incremental till the "crises" iss solved). You can bet ACORN, et al, were looking to lift these restrictions and divert any "stock market profits" from the sale of bailed out companies into it. It's their own personal little piggy bank.
sarah palin was fantastic - she won hands down. more so she is young and hungry, biden has lost that eye of the tiger. he looked sombre and unpassionate. if nesessary i think think she would make a fantastic president, and would fight terror till the end.
There is plenty of evidence that our country has taken the wrong track on several extremely important areas: The first is public schooling, which while public, doesn’t school. Another mistake was suspending the military draft because when everyone spends time in the service of our country, everyone understands that freedom isn’t free. Finally, we made a serious mistake accepting the erroneous notion that everyone and everything has equal value. As a result, we today have people who think there is only a slight distinction between a misrepresentation, and an outright lie, and we have produced people like Ducky and PSI Bond who think their opinions matter.
Mike
"It's amazing, you know, she's been thrust into the national spotlight with very little preparation and I think that, all things considered, you saw a very composed and effective debater last night."
-- Hillary Rodham Clinton, 3Oct08
As a result, we today have people who think there is only a slight distinction between a misrepresentation, and an outright lie, and we have produced people like Ducky and PSI Bond who think their opinions matter.
Mike, it is plain that the right has taken a wrong track when it misrepresents intolerance of diverse political opinion as being as American as apple pie and hockey moms. Apparently, to those on the right, the only opinions that matter (have real American value) are the ones that are the same as theirs; anything different has to be a tragic product of misinformation or brainwashing. To rightwingers–––who are historically exclusionary by nature–––only like-thinking people are the “real” Americans. I am thinking rightwingers will insist that what the majority of Americans think, unless they elect a Republican, does not matter.
You know , a person has to get the old hip waders out to get through the pure bs talking points from the Democrats that come here to try and demoralize some decent people.
The right is so bigoted, so intolerant..oh my goodness.
We are all horrible racist pigs..wanting to run out and make women have babies, blah blah.
Excuse me, but it is not the right who is out in some states trying to arrest people for saying things about the chosen ONE ..Saint Obama the Perfect.
It is not the right , threatening organizations with letters from lawyers because someone dares to run an ad that actually factually states Obabama's real position on our second ammendment rights.
So please, stop insulting us .
I know some think we are all just knuckle dragging cave people who cling bitterly to guns and religion but save the speeches.
Why insult us? You think we will see the light with you giving us this enlightening viewpoint?
You all claim your guy is winning , you are so up there so why are you whining about the right?
WVDOTTR
Joe Biden was great. He put forward a flawless performance. I, like probably everybody else watching, was so moved by the authentic grief that caught in his throat when he talked about his own personal experience.
— Hillary Rodham Clinton, 3Oct08
" Apparently, to those on the right, the only opinions that matter (have real American value) are the ones that are the same as theirs; anything different has to be a tragic product of misinformation or brainwashing. To rightwingers–––who are historically exclusionary by nature–––only like-thinking people are the “real” Americans."
Sad but true. That's because the opinions of the Left are basically anti-American. They are for the dissolution of America whether they know it or not. If all their opinions were enacted there would simply be no more America.
McCain has said that America is a Christian nation. So it is only what Christians think that really matters.
cj: Sad but true. That's because the opinions of the Left are basically anti-American. They are for the dissolution of America whether they know it or not. If all their opinions were enacted there would simply be no more America.
You are right, cj. Anyone who does not think like you is basically anti-American. If they are not for what you favor, they are for America’s annihilation. Who can argue with that?
Yes, only an anti-American can.
If the opinions of Ducky and PSI Bond really mattered, they'd start their own blog.
Mike
I'm sure I'm not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, "Hey, I think she just winked at me." And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can't be learned; it's either something you have or you don't, and man, she's got it.
— Rich Lowry, 3Oct08
Adorableness matters in politics (and sexual passion). Style over Substance.
Mike: If the opinions of Ducky and PSI Bond really mattered, they'd start their own blog.
Do you think, being exclusionary, Mike, that it is only the opinions of people who’ve started their own blogs that matter?
No.
What I think is, you're a pissant who should stop bothering the nice person who owns this blog.
M
The world will little note what I say here, but I predict, the next generation of politicians will start winking into the camera.
Not that what I think matters to rightwingers, M, but I think I am a nice person.
If saying civilly what I think politically bothers people, I think they should re-examine their fundamentals.
Interesting little article at IBD.
It states an email, that is not a hoax, which states:
Welcome to Camp Obama.
What follows in that email is fascinating.
Yep. Anti American.
But this is good, someone is taking off their mask.
WVDOTTR
Camp Obama is satire.
Like Sarah Palin is. She did a very good imitation of Tina Fey last night.
"pissant"
How perfect.
I will not respond to that. I am civil.
Being civil to each other ought to be a habit that is practiced in cyber-society.
Encouraging incivility while demanding that I be civil (which I always am) is hippocratic (sick [sic]).
"Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that." Senator Joe Biden, VP debate 10/2/2008
As all 7th grade civics class students and those who managed to crack the ceiling that separates the top 90% of Syracuse University law school graduates from the Joe Bidens in the bottom 10% all know, Article I of the US Constitution establishes the powers and duties of the US Congress, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Vice-Presidential office.
This was one among many gems of imbecility that farted out of Joe Biden's pie hole.
I'm torn on the diagnosis. One experience Joe Biden has never had is to be the most intelligent man in a room. On the other hand, as a member of the left-wing establishment, he's fought long and hard to convince people that he's incapable of rational thought.
The implications must be examined carefully.
At best, we have the opportunity to stop Joe Biden from swearing an oath as Vice-President to uphold and defend the letter and spirit of a Constitution he has no f*cking idea about.
Joseph Biden: Vice President Cheney has probably been the most dangerous Vice President we've had in American history. He has the idea...he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the Vice President of the United States.
beamish: As all 7th grade civics class students and those who managed to crack the ceiling that separates the top 90% of Syracuse University law school graduates from the Joe Bidens in the bottom 10% all know, Article I of the US Constitution establishes the powers and duties of the US Congress, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Vice-Presidential office. This was one among many gems of imbecility that farted out of Joe Biden's pie hole.
As a matter of fact, beamish, Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution states: “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.”
This is the only explicit mention in the Constitution of the role of the Vice President of the United States
Hence, Biden is correct.
Psi Bond,
Aside from your hilarious delusional belief in the existence of leftists that are actually capable of rational thought, what could possibly possess you to state that Biden is correct?
Parse his words carefully. Weigh his premises.
"Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history.The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."
Can Joe Biden cite an example of Vice President Dick Cheney voting in the Senate other than to break a tie? No? Then what makes Vice President Cheney the "most dangerous VP we've had probably in American history," as it relates to Article I of the US Constitution? What the was he ranting about?
Again, to reiterate with more of Joe Biden's drunken spittle - "The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous."
When did VP Cheney claim authority over Congress, or "gotten us" anywhere near something resembling dangerous?
What the hell is Joe Biden talking about? Does he even know?
Don’t change the subject, beamish. You are deluded by the hilariously disingenuous belief that abruptly switching subjects is a rational argument.
If one parses your words even with minimal attention, a rational person can see that your accusation that Biden is incorrect is wrong on the facts alone:
beamish: As all 7th grade civics class students and those who managed to crack the ceiling that separates the top 90% of Syracuse University law school graduates from the Joe Bidens in the bottom 10% all know, Article I of the US Constitution establishes the powers and duties of the US Congress, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Vice-Presidential office..
Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.”
No other article in the Constitution specifies a role for Vice President of the United States.
According to the Constitution, the VP is to be the President of Congress.
By Biden's own admission, he will not be doing any Presiding over the mess that is Congress whatsoever, since he believes the duties of the VP concerning Congress is to sit behind the President during the State of the Union Address.
Rather, Biden will be neglecting his duties regarding Congress in order to hold Obama's hand when it comes to making grievous foreign policy error.
After all, he's got more experience at that.
Psi Bond,
I realize that as a leftist that you are ideologically committed to the call of persuading people into believing that you're a moron. To that effect, the hallmark tendency of leftists to lack reading comprehension skills has served you well.
But, no, I have not changed the subject. Not at all.
If you weren't yourself too imbecilic to recognize Joe Biden's stupidity, I wouldn't have to spell it out for you. You really ought to do something about that insane belief you have in the existence of leftists that are capable of rational thought.
Joe Biden claimed that Cheney has been "the most dangerous Vice-President" due (in context) to some undocumentable, alleged misunderstanding of Cheney's that he believes himself to be an authoritative part of the legislative branch above and beyond his power to cast a tiebreaker vote in an evenly divided Senate.
Without even a single example of Cheney wielding or attempting to wield any power in the Senate not granted him by the Constitution, we're forced to wonder what "danger" Biden believes Cheney imperiled the legislative process, the seperation of powers, or even the Constitution with.
You know, the Constitution with the Article I that "defines the role of the Vice President" as being "the Executive branch."
What section and clause of Article I is that in?
Hello?
Joe Biden was great. He put forward a flawless performance. I, like probably everybody else watching, was so moved by the authentic grief that caught in his throat when he talked about his own personal experience.
— Hillary Rodham Clinton, 3Oct08
Sept 25, 2008 (a week before the VP Debates):
GREENSBURG, PA — Joe Biden’s emotions got the best of him at a campaign stop in Western Pennsylvania, as he recalled the great kindness done to him and his family by one of the area’s iconic families.
After being introduced by Pittsburgh Steelers owner and Obama supporter Dan Rooney, the VP candidate who wears his heart on his sleeve told how the the scion of that football family helped him out when he was at his lowest.
“Sorry to take your time, but Mr. Rooney reminded me of this, Dan reminded me by just seeing him,” he said — telling the crowd about the car accident in 1972 that killed his wife and daughter and left his sons in serious condition in the hospital.
“They wouldn’t let us have a Christmas tree in, understandably, into the hospital because of concern about fire. So I went to K-mart to get a synthetic tree that would, you know, so I’d be able to bring it in and have something there at Christmas for the kids,” he said. “One of the few times I was away from their bed for a couple hours, I came back and they looked like they had lighted up my Christmas trees.”
“My one boy was in traction, and my other little boy had a fractured skull. And they were happy. They each separately had a football in their bed.”
At this point, Biden looked down and paused for 15 seconds to collect himself. “Excuse me,” he said, wiping his eyes. The crowd applauded.
---
I sure he reprises the role of "grief stricken father" at each and every campaign appearance. I, for one, would LOVE to catch it "live"... it's so authentic!
FJ, "drunk"? Well...maybe!
The crying thing at the debate bothered me a lot. The Left is so conciliatory, the things they're saying and the way they're including it in even off topic converstions; The tragedy is one of THE most horrific things I could EVER imagine. And it was in the 1970's and he's been very happily married and had children since then. I know very few people who still tear up thirty five years later, but I don't assume to take that away from him. Perhaps he's a particularly emotional person.
But, for anyone to doubt that was planned the MINUTE Sarah stressed how she's a woman, a mom, with feminine instincts, etc...BAMMO, the tears came out.
The Yahoo headline that very night had their two faces side by side; She was at her toughest in the picture, making a point...Joe was crying, wiping a tear.
Accidental? obviously not. And oh, does it get voters.
Well, if had a wife and daughter that had just died in a car wreck and two boys in the hospital with serious injuries I know it would be my first priority to have my Senate swearing in photo-op done next to their hospital beds. NOT!
"Look, sons, I realize you mother and sister just died, and you're all torn up in the hospital, but I absolutely must exploit this tragedy for a photo-op. What other Senator has sworn his oath of office next to his mangled children?"
Good thing Michael Dukakis revealed that Biden plagiarized speeches from British Labor politician Neil Kinnock, and plagiarized most of his failing or below-average college work at Syracuse University.
Otherwise, Biden would have no memorable "accomplishments" whatsoever.
ya, but beamish...when the media's not telling the truth about all this plageiarism, etc..and we've got Rolling Stone with an article "THE LIES OF SARAH PALIN" and Letterman, last night, SKEWERED her, just ripped her face off with the smug elitist CRAP he pulls..oh, you wouldn't have believed his show last night (and I don't usually watch, so it might be like that every night?), you know that people aren't getting the truth. Just lies and jokes about her, etc etc. SOME people will get more riled in her favor, but this stuff makes a dent, Beamish...it's even wearing ME down.
Letterman actually said "and I'm independent!" Larry King said that the night of the first pres debate, too.....you can't make this stuff UP!!
Z,
The exasperation and frustration passes when you let go of the infinitely silly idea that any leftist is actually capable of rational thought. Like burying a pin and expecting to grow a bowling ball tree, it's a fairly wasteful exercise to attempt to coax a coherent thought out of a leftist.
So, why bother? Liberate yourself.
Then, every day online becomes a David Zucker film (just saw An American Carol, good clean fun...)
beamish: I realize that as a leftist that you are ideologically committed to the call of persuading people into believing that you're a moron. To that effect, the hallmark tendency of leftists to lack reading comprehension skills has served you well.
I know you, like many of your buddies, are committed ideologically to tendentiously vilifying liberals as evil leftists and morons. You do not serve your cause well by showing you cannot make a rational argument. It is not a lack of reading skills that leads one to make a distinction between matters of fact and matters of opinion. It is a rational disposition.
In Hitler’s personal copy of German Essays by Paul de Lagarde (German biblical scholar and anti-Semite, 1827-1891), underlined is: ”Each and every irksome Jew is a serious affront to the authenticity and veracity of our German identity.” I am pretty sure you do not share that sentiment, but you carry on, beamish, as though you believe: ”Each and every irksome Liberal is a serious affront to the authenticity and veracity of our conservative ideology.”
But, no, I have not changed the subject. Not at all.
You changed the subject from a indisputable matter of fact to a matter of opinion, which is disputable. You declared that Article I of the Constitution “has nothing whatsoever to do with the Vice-Presidential office”. As a matter of indisputable fact, it does. You then switched to the point that Biden made that Cheney misconstrues the role of the VP, which is an opinion.
If you weren't yourself too imbecilic to recognize Joe Biden's stupidity, I wouldn't have to spell it out for you. You really ought to do something about that insane belief you have in the existence of leftists that are capable of rational thought.
If you weren’t so single-minded in trying to prove the stupidity of those who don’t think like you, you might recognize that the factual question of whether Article I states anything about the VP’s role is separate from the question of whether Cheney misunderstands that role.
Joe Biden claimed that Cheney has been "the most dangerous Vice-President" due (in context) to some undocumentable, alleged misunderstanding of Cheney's that he believes himself to be an authoritative part of the legislative branch above and beyond his power to cast a tiebreaker vote in an evenly divided Senate.
It is not undocumentable. It is wrong to assume that because you are uninformed about the matter, it is undocumentable. Biden’s words refer to court papers in which Cheney claims that his alleged dual role in the Legislative and the Executive branches exempts him from producing documents requested by Congress.
Without even a single example of Cheney wielding or attempting to wield any power in the Senate not granted him by the Constitution, we're forced to wonder what "danger" Biden believes Cheney imperiled the legislative process, the seperation of powers, or even the Constitution with.
Given only 90 seconds to answer Ifill’s question about Cheney, he could not expand on the details of the case. Cheney's office is currently involved in litigation over the impact of the Presidential Records Act on his office, and Cheney's counsel has proffered the argument that the Vice President operates in both the legislative and executive branches of government—with functions as president of the Senate and others "specially assigned to the Vice President by the President in the discharge of executive duties and responsibilities."
You know, the Constitution with the Article I that "defines the role of the Vice President" as being "the Executive branch." What section and clause of Article I is that in?
What he said in condensed form in his 90 second response time is that the Article defines an executive function for the Vice President in the Senate, not a legislative one.
Hello?
Do you think, as you previously asserted, that Article I, where it says the Vice President shall be president of the Senate, has nothing to do with the Vice President? I can’t make this stuff up: You said it.
Earth to beamish, hello?
Psi Bond,
What he said in condensed form in his 90 second response time is that the Article defines an executive function for the Vice President in the Senate, not a legislative one.
No, actually what he said in his 90 second response time was:
"...Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history.The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that..."
If we're going to get into a contest of what Biden intended, then my mind reading device says Biden was trying to come up with something brazenly imbecilic to say, to maintain his leftist credentials.
Similar to your last comment.
If we're going to get into a contest of what Biden intended, then my mind reading device says Biden was trying to come up with something brazenly imbecilic to say, to maintain his leftist credentials.
You're changing the focus once again. But, no, beamish, mind reading is not required. Given the history of the struggle to get Cheney to release documents Congress requests, Biden’s meaning was that Article I defines the role of vice president of the United States and that is a role for an official highly placed in the Executive branch. It should be understood that his work is not as both a legislator and an executive.
Only those shamelessly eager to portray the senator as an imbecile will misrepresent what he said as “brazenly imbecilic”.
Similar to your last comment.
The question I posed at the end was not answered: Do you think, as you previously asserted, that Article I, where it says the Vice President shall be president of the Senate, has nothing to do with the Vice President? I can’t make this stuff up: You said it.
Do you still assert that despite the documented facts contradicting it?
And do you still assert that Biden's contention about Cheney is undocumentable?
”Each and every irksome Liberal is a serious affront to the authenticity and veracity of our conservative ideology.” Yes, and one could add very truthfully, "Each and every irksome Liberal is a serious affront to the authenticity and veracity, well being, and pride of America."
As for Cheney releasing documents, I'm wondering if you've noticed that it's THE LEFT which has tried so hard to get documents and then OOPS, get them leaked to the world?
Cheney is a man who understands our Left is now a dangerous force in this country and that, just so the NYTimes could get a scoop, yet another liberal senator would very possibly release whatever documents Cheney finally turned in to that paper...as if the whole world won't then learn the information. You see, the NYTimes has already proven time and time again it can't be trusted.
Thank GOD for those in our gov't who are still aware we're fighting an enemy who's benefited pretty handily from "LEAKS" from the NYTimes, huh?
Psi Bond,
You're changing the focus once again. But, no, beamish, mind reading is not required. Given the history of the struggle to get Cheney to release documents Congress requests, Biden’s meaning was that Article I defines the role of vice president of the United States and that is a role for an official highly placed in the Executive branch. It should be understood that his work is not as both a legislator and an executive.
Only those shamelessly eager to portray the senator as an imbecile will misrepresent what he said as “brazenly imbecilic”.
One of the endearingly comical things about the leftist zeal to convince people that all leftists are morons is that leftists rarely know they've long accomplished this goal.
Wake up, slowpoke. I have not changed the focus at all. I am focusing on what Joe Biden said on national television to over 70 million live viewers and countless millions reading the text and watching rebroadcasts of it.
Don't tell me words don't matter. I don't give a green grasshopper's red asshole what your opinion of what he "intended to say" or "didn't have time to say" is. We're judging what he actually said. Stay awake, pookie.
Furthermore, given Biden's other delusional and fictional debate statements (A month's spending in Iraq exceeding the total budget spent on military operations in Afghanistan for the past 6 or seven years! The US and France kicked Hezbollah out of Syria at some point in world history! John McCain's alleged breaking with Republicans to vote against the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty! Barack Obama made a pre-Senate career prophecy about elections leading to Hamas gaining control of the West Bank!), I believe it far more charitable to those who marvel enough at Biden's ruminations on what occurs in the alternate to reality known as the Biden-verse to mislabel them "foreign policy expertise" to simply assume that Biden said the brazenly imbecilic things he said to curry favor with leftists.
Admittedly, that's a circumstantial assumption, but given the bounty of Joe Biden's brazenly imbecilic statements in the debate on other matters aside from his revealed ignorance on the first Article of the US Constitution quite clearly establish a pattern nigh indistinguishable from an actual concerted and meticulously crafted effort to convince people that Joe Biden is an ignorant ass on foreign policy matters, I think it's safe to err on the side of caution and say Biden's leftist imbecility is authentic.
35 years in the Senate and it never dawned on him that Article I is more about him than a Vice-President. That's undeniably beyond the call of leftist duty stupid. Let no man call Biden a conservative.
And so, Biden said that Article I of the US Constitution defines the Vice President's role as the executive branch. Article I of the US Constitution available to the inhabitants of this planet for review does not say this.
It does define the VP's role as the President of the Senate, with power to vote only to break at tie.
Again, we have to look at Joe Biden's full statement, cut and pasted enough already for hopefully even the most illiterate majority of leftists to follow along smearing their monitors with their snot encrusted fingers, that claimed Article I defines the Vice-President's role as the Executive branch, despite said article not even mentioning the executive branch.
The question I posed at the end was not answered: Do you think, as you previously asserted, that Article I, where it says the Vice President shall be president of the Senate, has nothing to do with the Vice President? I can’t make this stuff up: You said it.
Biden, and now you, seem to be arguing that a Vice-President's role in the executive branch is defined by Article I of the US Constitution, the article that codifies the legislative branch.
You doubt the brazen imbecility of that position?
And do you still assert that Biden's contention about Cheney is undocumentable?
Most Biden statements lack the pre-requisite basis in reality to establish them as verifiably true.
Biden's contentions about Cheney are that he's allegedly the "most dangerous Vice President in American history" and that Cheney allegedly has an idea that he is both a member of the executive and legislative branches.
We know from Joe Biden's nomination acceptance speech on the third night of the Bill and Hillary Clinton show that his childhood was filled with lots of running home to his momma after getting knocked on his ass by the neighborhood (to the point his mother told him not to come home until he bloodied someone's nose). So it's rather speculative on our part to determine what Joe Biden views as "dangerous." I mean, really. If you're not going duck hunting with Dick Cheney, he's probably no more dangerous than, say, Aaron Burr.
As for what Joe Biden imagines Dick Cheney's ideas on the office of the Vice-Presidency are, maybe he should listen to himself when he demands documents from the executive branch protected by executive priviledge.
We've already covered "brazenly imbecilic."
You're changing the focus once again. But, no, beamish, mind reading is not required. Given the history of the struggle to get Cheney to release documents Congress requests, Biden’s meaning was that Article I defines the role of vice president of the United States and that is a role for an official highly placed in the Executive branch. It should be understood that his work is not as both a legislator and an executive.
Only those shamelessly eager to portray the senator as an imbecile will misrepresent what he said as “brazenly imbecilic”.
beamish: One of the endearingly comical things about the leftist zeal to convince people that all leftists are morons is that leftists rarely know they've long accomplished this goal.
One of the amusing things about self-righteous rightwingers like you is that they don’t know how vacuous their bloviating is to a rational person.
Wake up, slowpoke. I have not changed the focus at all. I am focusing on what Joe Biden said on national television to over 70 million live viewers and countless millions reading the text and watching rebroadcasts of it..
You don’t get it. You have changed the focus from what he said Article I does, defining the role of the VP, to what he asserted is the true character of that role–––the Executive branch.
Don't tell me words don't matter. I don't give a green grasshopper's red asshole what your opinion of what he "intended to say" or "didn't have time to say" is. We're judging what he actually said. Stay awake, pookie.
The words he hastily said do matter, but for the uniformed to understand them, the context must be supplied. It’s clear that what he said is not clear to you. I am helping you out by providing some of the context that he could not explain in his allotted ninety seconds.
Make an effort to get it. This is for your benefit, beamish.
Furthermore, given Biden's other delusional and fictional debate statements (A month's spending in Iraq exceeding the total budget spent on military operations in Afghanistan for the past 6 or seven years! The US and France kicked Hezbollah out of Syria at some point in world history! John McCain's alleged breaking with Republicans to vote against the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty! Barack Obama made a pre-Senate career prophecy about elections leading to Hamas gaining control of the West Bank!), I believe it far more charitable to those who marvel enough at Biden's ruminations on what occurs in the alternate to reality known as the Biden-verse to mislabel them "foreign policy expertise" to simply assume that Biden said the brazenly imbecilic things he said to curry favor with leftists.
You're changing the focus and the subject here. If you include everything one says at different unrelated points in a debate to draw a conclusion about what he said at one particular point in the debate you are making the logical error of induction. One could do the same with Palin. But, of course, you won’t do that.
Admittedly, that's a circumstantial assumption, but given the bounty of Joe Biden's brazenly imbecilic statements in the debate on other matters aside from his revealed ignorance on the first Article of the US Constitution quite clearly establish a pattern nigh indistinguishable from an actual concerted and meticulously crafted effort to convince people that Joe Biden is an ignorant ass on foreign policy matters, I think it's safe to err on the side of caution and say Biden's leftist imbecility is authentic.
Your rant here clearly establishes your dire need to pretend, using the inductive fallacy, that the senator is an imbecile.
35 years in the Senate and it never dawned on him that Article I is more about him than a Vice-President. That's undeniably beyond the call of leftist duty stupid. Let no man call Biden a conservative.
Section 3, Clause 4 of Article I is concerned with what role the Vice President has. It is in fact what Biden says it is about. It says the VP is president of the Senate, which is a role of an executive nature. Cheney is trying to claim he is not only an executive but also a legislator. This is a calculated strategy to circumvent congressional subpoenas of documents from the Vice-President’s office.
And so, Biden said that Article I of the US Constitution defines the Vice President's role as the executive branch. Article I of the US Constitution available to the inhabitants of this planet for review does not say this. It does define the VP's role as the President of the Senate, with power to vote only to break at tie.
So Biden is right: the definition of the VP’s role is contained in Article I. Any inhabitant of the planet who studies it should understand that a presidential role is an executive role.
Again, we have to look at Joe Biden's full statement, cut and pasted enough already for hopefully even the most illiterate majority of leftists to follow along smearing their monitors with their snot encrusted fingers, that claimed Article I defines the Vice-President's role as the Executive branch, despite said article not even mentioning the executive branch.
Initially you did not look at Joe Biden’s full statement. You only considered the first part of it. Then you changed focus to the second part, after you were found to be in obvious error when you flatly declared that the article says nothing about the VP. “Article I of the US Constitution establishes the powers and duties of the US Congress, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Vice-Presidential office,” you said. Now you implicitly admit that it does.
The article does not mention executive branch, but Biden has point because it describes the VP at the president of the Senate. The term ‘president’ connotes ‘executive’.
The question I posed at the end was not answered: Do you think, as you previously asserted, that Article I, where it says the Vice President shall be president of the Senate, has nothing to do with the Vice President? I can’t make this stuff up: You said it.
Biden, and now you, seem to be arguing that a Vice-President's role in the executive branch is defined by Article I of the US Constitution, the article that codifies the legislative branch.
It is fairly clear that the Article defines an executive role for the VP in the Senate. In the system designed by the Founding Fathers, the vice-presidency went to the runner-up in the Electoral College. The Founders did not envision political parties. Of course, now it goes to the runner picked by the winner of the Electoral College vote or by his party. But, in the beginning, the VP was a rival of the president. They wanted to give him as little executive power as possible. So, other than waiting on the possibility that the president will resign, die, be removed from office, or be incapacitated, they gave him a mostly ceremonial role as president of the Senate. Presiding over the Senate is an executive role. Hence, his vestigial executive role is defined in Article I (defining the Legislative branch). Section 3 (defining the Senate).
You doubt the brazen imbecility of that position?
I don’t doubt your deep psychological need to characterize it as such. But, when considered without partisan passion, it makes arguable sense. That you concede Biden is talking about a particular position he has is progress from your original position that he was talking nonsense.
And do you still assert that Biden's contention about Cheney is undocumentable?
Most Biden statements lack the pre-requisite basis in reality to establish them as verifiably true.
That assertion is unsubstantiated. Given the supreme smugness of its assertion about “most Biden statements”, it is undocumentable. And. In reality, you avoided answering the question.
Biden's contentions about Cheney are that he's allegedly the "most dangerous Vice President in American history" and that Cheney allegedly has an idea that he is both a member of the executive and legislative branches.
We know from Joe Biden's nomination acceptance speech on the third night of the Bill and Hillary Clinton show that his childhood was filled with lots of running home to his momma after getting knocked on his ass by the neighborhood (to the point his mother told him not to come home until he bloodied someone's nose). So it's rather speculative on our part to determine what Joe Biden views as "dangerous." I mean, really. If you're not going duck hunting with Dick Cheney, he's probably no more dangerous than, say, Aaron Burr.
But Aaron Burr killed a man. How dangerous is that? Cheney’s hunting pal was damn lucky. However, you are changing the focus again. It does not require much speculation at all for a rational person to realize that, in the given context, Biden understands ‘dangerous’ to be an official who acts in a manner not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
As for what Joe Biden imagines Dick Cheney's ideas on the office of the Vice-Presidency are, maybe he should listen to himself when he demands documents from the executive branch protected by executive priviledge.
What Biden says is Cheney’s idea of his role, what Cheney claims is his role, and what Biden may do as a member of the Executive when presented with a request for documents are separate and distinct matters. Mixed wantonly together the way you do, they make little logical sense. It only tries to obfuscate the fact that what Biden was talking about is not nonsense at all, but a specific case in the real world.
We've already covered "brazenly imbecilic."
Yes, it’s what you are shamelessly devoted to proving Joe Biden to be.
Z: ”Each and every irksome Liberal is a serious affront to the authenticity and veracity of our conservative ideology.” Yes, and one could add very truthfully, "Each and every irksome Liberal is a serious affront to the authenticity and veracity, well being, and pride of America."
You could do a good job of updating Lagarde’s essay for modern America by substituting ‘Liberals’ for ‘Jews’. I am not in favor of implacable intolerance of any native political group.
Because I am a liberal, I do not think each and every irksome rightwinger is a serious affront to “the authenticity and veracity, well-being, and pride of America.” I do not feel threatened by them because I am secure in the knowledge that liberal thought has made this country a liberal democracy, and has led to emancipation of the slaves, the civil rights laws of the 60s, the acceptance of immigrants from all the hells of earth (many from communist countries vote Republican), the rights and suffrage of women and their constructive nontraditional roles in society, and an enlightened view of science. I have no political need to misrepresent and demonize rightwingers as some enemy menace to America.
As for Cheney releasing documents, I'm wondering if you've noticed that it's THE LEFT which has tried so hard to get documents and then OOPS, get them leaked to the world?
Cheney is a man who understands our Left is now a dangerous force in this country and that, just so the NYTimes could get a scoop, yet another liberal senator would very possibly release whatever documents Cheney finally turned in to that paper...as if the whole world won't then learn the information. You see, the NYTimes has already proven time and time again it can't be trusted.
Thank GOD for those in our gov't who are still aware we're fighting an enemy who's benefited pretty handily from "LEAKS" from the NYTimes, huh?
So keeping knowledge of the government’s skullduggery from congressional oversight and from the public and, above all, from the untrustworthy New York Times promotes a strong democracy, eh?. The more the American people are kept ignorant, the freer the government can be to act, huh, Z? Transparency in government is treason most high. Of course, I can’t make this stuff up –––you said it, in your own words.
A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.
— James Madison, 1822
Psi Bond,
The words he hastily said do matter, but for the uniformed to understand them, the context must be supplied. It’s clear that what he said is not clear to you. I am helping you out by providing some of the context that he could not explain in his allotted ninety seconds.
I have the context. Here it is:
IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.
IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency?
BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.
The most "dangerous" thing a Vice-President can do, the most dangerous thing Cheney can do, is vote to split a tie-vote in favor of the opposition to the President's agenda. Or to make sure the President's agenda passes the Senate whenever there's a tie-vote.
That's mighty frightening stuff. I stay awake during the day just absolutely skeered shitless about it.
Every bit of your editorial content to provide the ever illusive "what Biden meant to say" context has done nothing but intensify the imbecility of Biden's statements.
You're changing the focus and the subject here. If you include everything one says at different unrelated points in a debate to draw a conclusion about what he said at one particular point in the debate you are making the logical error of induction. One could do the same with Palin. But, of course, you won’t do that.
Palin got General McKiernan's name wrong.
Joe Biden hallucinated that the United States and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.
I freely admitted my circumstantial assumption for what it was - "Admittedly, that's a circumstantial assumption, but given the bounty of Joe Biden's brazenly imbecilic statements in the debate on other matters aside from his revealed ignorance on the first Article of the US Constitution quite clearly establish a pattern nigh indistinguishable from an actual concerted and meticulously crafted effort to convince people that Joe Biden is an ignorant ass on foreign policy matters, I think it's safe to err on the side of caution and say Biden's leftist imbecility is authentic."
The meaning of a statement is its method of verification. Biden has a history of hallucination and imbecility. For example, his criticism of Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech for including North Korea, a nation Biden deemed to his knowledge "not in violation of any treaties" despite having chaired his own Senate Foreign Relations commitee hearings that found North Korea in violation of the Agreed Nuclear Framework Treaty.
It's not "induction" to assume an established pattern of historic Biden imbecility, going back 30+ years, is the proper context in which to look for motive or intent outside Biden's precise verbatim debate statements.
I'm trying to give the old drunk buffoon some credit by framing the argument the way I have - that Biden meant every damn word he said. He don't need some internet flunkie gunsel interpreter to handicap him some context. His IQ is higher than yours, muthafugga.
Which, ain't saying much.
Your arm-up-Biden's-ass-to-puppet-him argument is "Cheney is dangerous because as a member of the executive branch he can keep certain types of documents from public and Congressional scrutiny via executive privilidge."
Dude, seriously. Stop. My ribs are hurting.
What Biden says is Cheney’s idea of his role, what Cheney claims is his role, and what Biden may do as a member of the Executive when presented with a request for documents are separate and distinct matters. Mixed wantonly together the way you do, they make little logical sense. It only tries to obfuscate the fact that what Biden was talking about is not nonsense at all, but a specific case in the real world.
Mixed wantonly together? I tried to keep your asinine cheerleader speculations about what Biden "intended to say" out of the microscope on what he said. Then when I finally integrated these speculations to try to enhance Biden through the imbecile / moron IQ class threshold, you say the resulting unexpurgated Biden intent makes "little logical sense." Well, duh. He's a leftist. I've never claimed otherwise. Joe Biden is brazenly imbecilic.
And you agree.
Psi Bond,
So keeping knowledge of the government’s skullduggery from congressional oversight and from the public and, above all, from the untrustworthy New York Times promotes a strong democracy, eh?. The more the American people are kept ignorant, the freer the government can be to act, huh, Z? Transparency in government is treason most high. Of course, I can’t make this stuff up –––you said it, in your own words.
You've already established that you're a leftist that likes to be called "liberal." The unleashing of a demonstration of your lack of reading comprehension skills upon Z wasn't necessary.
And so, now you're against everything held in priviledged confidence from intelligence operations on down to local law enforcement undercover investigations.
In your own words, of course.
The words he hastily said do matter, but for the uniformed to understand them, the context must be supplied. It’s clear that what he said is not clear to you. I am helping you out by providing some of the context that he could not explain in his allotted ninety seconds.
I have the context. Here it is:
The context you give is not one that is needed. The necessary context involves a pending case in federal court brought by historians and archivists against Dick Cheney.
The most "dangerous" thing a Vice-President can do, the most dangerous thing Cheney can do, is vote to split a tie-vote in favor of the opposition to the President's agenda. Or to make sure the President's agenda passes the Senate whenever there's a tie-vote.
No, the most dangerous thing a Vice-President can do is assume a role or privileges not permitted by the Constitution.
That's mighty frightening stuff. I stay awake during the day just absolutely skeered shitless about it.
For example, Vice would not be nice if he decided it was his role to determine when the President is not fit to perform his duties.
Every bit of your editorial content to provide the ever illusive "what Biden meant to say" context has done nothing but intensify the imbecility of Biden's statements.
You strengthen the demonstration of your irrationality by insisting the most dangerous thing is to split a tie vote in the President's favor. To put it simply, Cheney is saying he is both in the legislative and executive branches, while Biden is saying Cheney is only in the executive branch. Cheney is arguing that, because of his dual role, he is exempt under the Presidential Records Act from providing some documents to the National Archives, where they can be studied by historians.
You're changing the focus and the subject here. If you include everything one says at different unrelated points in a debate to draw a conclusion about what he said at one particular point in the debate you are making the logical error of induction. One could do the same with Palin. But, of course, you won’t do that.
Palin got General McKiernan's name wrong.
I didn't say you wouldn't name one error (you chose a minor error) by Palin. What I said is you wouldn't use her errors to conclude she is imbecilic. She makes other errors. Here is a syntactic error: "And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain." Of course, she means to say her pick as V.P. with McCain is partly to be attributed to her executive experience.
Joe Biden hallucinated that the United States and France kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon
You don't think he made an honest mistake in haste, mispeaking Hezbollah when he meant the Syrians? Is it your inductive fallacy that prevents you from thinking that?
I freely admitted my circumstantial assumption for what it was - "Admittedly, that's a circumstantial assumption, but given the bounty of Joe Biden's brazenly imbecilic statements in the debate on other matters aside from his revealed ignorance on the first Article of the US Constitution quite clearly establish a pattern nigh indistinguishable from an actual concerted and meticulously crafted effort to convince people that Joe Biden is an ignorant ass on foreign policy matters, I think it's safe to err on the side of caution and say Biden's leftist imbecility is authentic."
Why don't you conclude that Palin's syntactic confusion, illustrated above, establishes her inability to make logical sense? Why does her mistaking McKiernan's name not indicate an inability to master details? On the campaign trail, she referred to the Palin-McCain administration. Why does her confusion of details not lead you to see a pattern of imbecility in Palin's mind?
The meaning of a statement is its method of verification. Biden has a history of hallucination and imbecility. For example, his criticism of Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech for including North Korea, a nation Biden deemed to his knowledge "not in violation of any treaties" despite having chaired his own Senate Foreign Relations commitee hearings that found North Korea in violation of the Agreed Nuclear Framework Treaty.
No, the meaning of a statement is in the meaning assigned to the words in the statement.
Without a link, I cannot say how unbiased and accurate your version of this cited information is. For example, many experts agreed in 2002 when North Korea was found selling missile technology, that it was not in violation of any treaty, since it was not a signatory of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Can this be the origin of an urban legend about Biden?
It's not "induction" to assume an established pattern of historic Biden imbecility, going back 30+ years, is the proper context in which to look for motive or intent outside Biden's precise verbatim debate statements.
A supposed pattern of imbecility is not the proper basis for concluding something about the sense of one particular statement. If you had understood induction, you wouldn't say it isn't induction. Without looking it up, I would describe an inductive conclusion as follows: Consider a property P and entities A, B, C, D. .... K. If A is P, B is P, C is P, D is P, ..., then K is P. The conclusion K is P does not logically follow from the antecedent premises. That is the fallacy. For example, I observe that every sentence in your posts to me has been written in standard or vulgar English. However, I have no basis at all in logic to conclude that the next sentence you post will be in English. C'est vrai.
Here is an example in mathematics: The first three odd numbers greater than 1 are 3, 5, and 7. Each of them is a prime number. Induction on these three numbers would lead one to conclude that all odd numbers are primes. But that is false, for 9, the next odd number, is composite.
I'm trying to give the old drunk buffoon some credit by framing the argument the way I have - that Biden meant every damn word he said. He don't need some internet flunkie gunsel interpreter to handicap him some context. His IQ is higher than yours, muthafugga. Which, ain't saying much.
You misunderstand what I meant by context. It is a case in law. To be specific: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Richard B. Cheney.
Palin's response to Ifill's question does not provide context to the response given by Biden to the same question. The legal struggles in court involving Cheney provide the necessary explanatory context.
BTW, there is no evidence he was drunk during that debate.
Your arm-up-Biden's-ass-to-puppet-him argument is "Cheney is dangerous because as a member of the executive branch he can keep certain types of documents from public and Congressional scrutiny via executive privilidge[sic]."
No, Cheney may be dangerous because he is misconstruing the Constitution to protect his unethical conduct from public scrutiny.
Dude, seriously. Stop. My ribs are hurting.
You would be amused if it were a Democrat withholding documents.
What Biden says is Cheney’s idea of his role, what Cheney claims is his role, and what Biden may do as a member of the Executive when presented with a request for documents are separate and distinct matters. Mixed wantonly together the way you do, they make little logical sense. It only tries to obfuscate the fact that what Biden was talking about is not nonsense at all, but a specific case in the real world.
Mixed wantonly together? I tried to keep your asinine cheerleader speculations about what Biden "intended to say" out of the microscope on what he said. Then when I finally integrated these speculations to try to enhance Biden through the imbecile / moron IQ class threshold, you say the resulting unexpurgated Biden intent makes "little logical sense." Well, duh. He's a leftist. I've never claimed otherwise. Joe Biden is brazenly imbecilic.
Being a foolhardy blowhard bent on badmouthing Biden, you only give abundant evidence of substandard reading skills, deficient logic aptitude, and a wanton sense of righteousness. I did not not say "the resulting unexpurgated Biden intent makes 'little logical sense.'" I did not say anything like that. Nor was that my intent. In fact, your conclusion makes little logical sense.
And you agree.
I agree that you have a problem with reading that endangers your ability to respond sensibly, and that you are belligerently defensive about it, beamish.
You've already established that you're a leftist that likes to be called "liberal." The unleashing of a demonstration of your lack of reading comprehension skills upon Z wasn't necessary.
And so, now you're against everything held in priviledged [sic] confidence from intelligence operations on down to local law enforcement undercover investigations.
In your own words, of course.
beamish, you have already made it clear that you believe only rightwingers are capable of rational thought. Yet you have only proved that you are incapable of rational thought. Originally you said that what Biden said in the debate about Cheney made no sense, yet you are now engaged in debating the nuances of it at length. You started out by saying Article I has nothing to do with the Vice President, yet it plainly gives a definition of the Vice President's role in government.
Now you distort what I said and, of course, you manage to demonstrate your lack of reading skills yet again. Disingenuously, you obfuscate the meaning of transparent government by pretending it involves disclosing classified information about undercover or intelligence operations. No, the question is: Should a government official have the power to withhold documents that may be evidence of ethical misconduct?
Psi Bond,
The context you give is not one that is needed. The necessary context involves a pending case in federal court brought by historians and archivists against Dick Cheney.
No, the context relies on Gwen Ifill's question and how Joe Biden chose to answer it.
We can't know for certain what Biden "intended to say, but didn't."
You strengthen the demonstration of your irrationality by insisting the most dangerous thing is to split a tie vote in the President's favor.
Please tell me you're really not too stupid to recognize my sarcasm.
Maybe you lose sleep over not getting to see Cheney's records before the 12-year mark after the administration leaves office (as mandated by the Presidential Records Act), but I don't.
In the year 2020, when we get to read them, I better get a horrifying chill down my spine or I'm going to hop in a time machine, come back and laugh at you now.
To put it simply, Cheney is saying he is both in the legislative and executive branches, while Biden is saying Cheney is only in the executive branch. Cheney is arguing that, because of his dual role, he is exempt under the Presidential Records Act from providing some documents to the National Archives, where they can be studied by historians.
I just got back from the year 2020, and man do people laugh at you tinfoil hat paranoid 2008 leftists there.
ROFLMAO!
You misunderstand what I meant by context. It is a case in law. To be specific: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Richard B. Cheney.
Actually, that's an (at this writing) untried case ongoing in the District of Columbia federal court. It hasn't even been on the docket for 3 weeks (at this writing) yet.
Don't you think it's a little early to call a court proceeding that has barely even started "case law?"
I still don't see the Biden connection between "most dangerous Vice President in American history" and a nuisance lawsuit about executive branch records that nobody will have public access to until 2020 anyway.
I didn't say you wouldn't name one error (you chose a minor error) by Palin. What I said is you wouldn't use her errors to conclude she is imbecilic. She makes other errors. Here is a syntactic error: "And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain." Of course, she means to say her pick as V.P. with McCain is partly to be attributed to her executive experience.
Palin's errors were syntactic. Biden's errors were factual.
You don't think he made an honest mistake in haste, mispeaking Hezbollah when he meant the Syrians? Is it your inductive fallacy that prevents you from thinking that?
No. I don't think an alleged "foreign policy expert" should make "honest mistakes" about the US and France "kicking Hezbollah out of Lebanon." Nor, given his extended remarks, do I believe Biden was "mispeaking" to mean Syria instead of Hezbollah when he said: "When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it. Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel." I don't believe "correcting" the hallucinatory Biden to have him refer to the US and France kicking Syria out of Lebanon instead makes the brazenly imbecilic Biden look any better. To wit:
1. The United States and France have never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. The political wing of Hezbollah has been a party in Lebanese government for almost 20 years now. By 1991, Hezbollah had already created its own propaganda television network and social service organizations in Southern Lebanon.
2. Syria voluntarily withdrew their occupation forces from Lebanon in 2001, under no direct or implied threat from either the US or France. In 2001, Barack Obama was still fixing parking tickets in Chicago and likely had no opinion on the matter whatsoever. There's no evidence Joe Biden warned about a fully entrenched terrorist group such as Hezbollah becoming more fully entrenched when Syria withdraw.
In fact, Biden seems to be acutely unaware that Hezbollah is a Syrian- and Iranian-backed proxy force in Lebanon.
My point stands. Biden is a brazen imbecile.
Without a link, I cannot say how unbiased and accurate your version of this cited information is. For example, many experts agreed in 2002 when North Korea was found selling missile technology, that it was not in violation of any treaty, since it was not a signatory of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Can this be the origin of an urban legend about Biden?
I didn't say anything about missiles. Biden's Senate Foreign Relations committee in 1998 found North Korea in violation of the Agreed Nuclear Framework (where Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton gave Kim Jong-il light water nuclear reactors and an autographed Michael Jordan basketball in exchange for a piece of paper that claimed North Korea wouldn't build nuclear weapons - you expected intellect from Democrats?).
Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech was delivered in 2002. Joe Biden criticized that speech on the grounds that as a "Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee" he'd never seen evidence of North Korea doing basically what his committee accused it of doing in 1998.
As I keep demonstrating to you, Biden is brazenly imbecilic.
Quite frankly, you'd ought to have learned it by now.
Except for the fact that you're leftist, and can't.
Psi Bond,
beamish, you have already made it clear that you believe only rightwingers are capable of rational thought.
No. I only believe leftists are incapable of rational thought. Liberals are arguably capable of rational thought, but are philosophically opposed to demonstrating this capability in front of witnesses. Right-wingers do not hold a monopoly on the capacity for rational thought, although very few lack the skill set the way all leftists do.
Yet you have only proved that you are incapable of rational thought. Originally you said that what Biden said in the debate about Cheney made no sense, yet you are now engaged in debating the nuances of it at length.
I stand by my remarks about Biden's brazen imbecility. Indulging in your "nuance" guesswork about what Biden "intended to say, but didn't" as if it were the the case apparent merely puts your own brazen imbecility in his mouth.
You started out by saying Article I has nothing to do with the Vice President, yet it plainly gives a definition of the Vice President's role in government.
It does indeed give a definition of the VP's role in the US Senate. The US Senate is not the Executive branch. Nor is this power to break tie votes in the Senate the VP's only role in government, which are primarily within the Executive branch.
Now you distort what I said and, of course, you manage to demonstrate your lack of reading skills yet again.
I distorted your words no more than you distorted Z's words.
Disingenuously, you obfuscate the meaning of transparent government by pretending it involves disclosing classified information about undercover or intelligence operations.
You said it in your own words, remember?
No, the question is: Should a government official have the power to withhold documents that may be evidence of ethical misconduct?
Should the US government have faked the Apollo moon landings with alien technology exploited from the Roswell UFO crash?
The context you give is not one that is needed. The necessary context involves a pending case in federal court brought by historians and archivists against Dick Cheney.
No, the context relies on Gwen Ifill's question and how Joe Biden chose to answer it.
It doesn't rely on Palin's non-responsive answer, which you also posted. Biden’s answer also relies on a pending court case in which Cheney argues that he belongs to both the legislative and executive branches of government.
We can't know for certain what Biden "intended to say, but didn't."
But given the context of Ifill's question concerning the legislative and executive roles claimed by the VP and the pending court case, we can be fairly certain about what Biden meant–––that the VP is, in his view, a part of the executive branch only.
We don't know for certain that the next president will be either Obama or McCain, but we can be fairly certain it will be one of the two.
You strengthen the demonstration of your irrationality by insisting the most dangerous thing is to split a tie vote in the President's favor.
Please tell me you're really not too stupid to recognize my sarcasm.
I read it as sarcasm mixed with a disingenuous desire to obfuscate the point that a Vice-President can be dangerous who believes it is his role to say what the Constitution means.
Maybe you lose sleep over not getting to see Cheney's records before the 12-year mark after the administration leaves office (as mandated by the Presidential Records Act), but I don't.
Some people have a concern about ethical conduct and good government, but, of course, not everyone is bothered about such matters.
In the year 2020, when we get to read them, I better get a horrifying chill down my spine or I'm going to hop in a time machine, come back and laugh at you now.
Whether or not Cheney turns out to be the most honorable of men, the principle at stake and in law remains unaffected. However, your hopping in a time-travel machine to find out the contents of the documents and returning to the present just so you can prove Cheney had nothing to hide by withholding them, is over-the-top irrational behavior, beamish.
To put it simply, Cheney is saying he is both in the legislative and executive branches, while Biden is saying Cheney is only in the executive branch. Cheney is arguing that, because of his dual role, he is exempt under the Presidential Records Act from providing some documents to the National Archives, where they can be studied by historians.
I just got back from the year 2020, and man do people laugh at you tinfoil hat paranoid 2008 leftists there.
Sorry, beamish, evidence obtained from time travel is inadmissible in a realtime rational argument on politics.
ROFLMAO!
Me 2.
You misunderstand what I meant by context. It is a case in law. To be specific: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Richard B. Cheney.
Actually, that's an (at this writing) untried case ongoing in the District of Columbia federal court. It hasn't even been on the docket for 3 weeks (at this writing) yet.
I did mention that it was a pending case....
Don't you think it's a little early to call a court proceeding that has barely even started "case law?"
Read it again. I did not say "case law". The phrase "a case in law" means to a non-lawyer "a case in the legal system". Not necessarily decided. The very existence of the case is sufficient to prove that Biden had in mind something real when he took issue with Cheney's interpretation of his role.
I still don't see the Biden connection between "most dangerous Vice President in American history" and a nuisance lawsuit about executive branch records that nobody will have public access to until 2020 anyway.
Well, last month a federal judge made a ruling in the case that prevents the VP from destroying any of the documents in dispute. It would be dangerous to allow a Vice-President to destroy government documents at his own discretion. However, the point is Biden was making a direct response to a specific matter brought up by Gwen Ifill. It was not nonsense, as you contended.
I didn't say you wouldn't name one error (you chose a minor error) by Palin. What I said is you wouldn't use her errors to conclude she is imbecilic. She makes other errors. Here is a syntactic error: "And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain." Of course, she means to say her pick as V.P. with McCain is partly to be attributed to her executive experience.
Palin's errors were syntactic. Biden's errors were factual.
Jumbled syntax in a prepared talking point is generally indicative of a jumbled thought process. Other errors she made were not syntactic. But many observers did not notice because they were surprised she could speak at all well on various topics, even though they were mostly memorized set speeches and not always on the topics that were asked about.
You don't think he made an honest mistake in haste, mispeaking Hezbollah when he meant the Syrians? Is it your inductive fallacy that prevents you from thinking that?
No. I don't think an alleged "foreign policy expert" should make "honest mistakes" about the US and France "kicking Hezbollah out of Lebanon." Nor, given his extended remarks, do I believe Biden was "mispeaking" to mean Syria instead of Hezbollah when he said: "When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it. Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel." I don't believe "correcting" the hallucinatory Biden to have him refer to the US and France kicking Syria out of Lebanon instead makes the brazenly imbecilic Biden look any better. To wit:
1. The United States and France have never kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. The political wing of Hezbollah has been a party in Lebanese government for almost 20 years now. By 1991, Hezbollah had already created its own propaganda television network and social service organizations in Southern Lebanon.
2. Syria voluntarily withdrew their occupation forces from Lebanon in 2001, under no direct or implied threat from either the US or France. In 2001, Barack Obama was still fixing parking tickets in Chicago and likely had no opinion on the matter whatsoever. There's no evidence Joe Biden warned about a fully entrenched terrorist group such as Hezbollah becoming more fully entrenched when Syria withdraw.
In fact, Biden seems to be acutely unaware that Hezbollah is a Syrian- and Iranian-backed proxy force in Lebanon.
My point stands. Biden is a brazen imbecile.
Your point stands without logical proof. It is partisan animosity that impels one to dogmatically assume that the mistaking of a name in ad hoc speech is produced by imbecility of mind rather than a propensity for gaffes. That an American who is imbecilic can be elected and re-elected to Congress many times by a majority of voters is an imbecilic assumption.
Without a link, I cannot say how unbiased and accurate your version of this cited information is. For example, many experts agreed in 2002 when North Korea was found selling missile technology, that it was not in violation of any treaty, since it was not a signatory of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Can this be the origin of an urban legend about Biden?
I didn't say anything about missiles. Biden's Senate Foreign Relations committee in 1998 found North Korea in violation of the Agreed Nuclear Framework (where Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton gave Kim Jong-il light water nuclear reactors and an autographed Michael Jordan basketball in exchange for a piece of paper that claimed North Korea wouldn't build nuclear weapons - you expected intellect from Democrats?).
This paragraph has all the earmarks of a rightwing talking point. You did not provide the requested link for your claim concerning what Biden said about North Korea. In any case, not to lose focus, there is no rational way to show that your point concerning North Korea proves that Biden spoke nonsense about Cheney's idea of the constitutional role of the Vice-President.
Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech was delivered in 2002. Joe Biden criticized that speech on the grounds that as a "Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee" he'd never seen evidence of North Korea doing basically what his committee accused it of doing in 1998.
Don't just repeat the charge; provide a link. A link is needed to judge the veracity of your source.
As I keep demonstrating to you, Biden is brazenly imbecilic.
Quite frankly, you'd ought to have learned it by now.
Except for the fact that you're leftist, and can't.
In politics, it is easy to make anyone look imbecilic by manipulating the facts. You ought to have learned that long ago, but you're one of the rabid Biden haters, and, therefore, you can't learn that.
beamish, you have already made it clear that you believe only rightwingers are capable of rational thought.
No. I only believe leftists are incapable of rational thought. Liberals are arguably capable of rational thought, but are philosophically opposed to demonstrating this capability in front of witnesses.
Thus you admit that liberals and leftists are not identical, even though you often use the term 'leftists' as if they were indistinguishable. When it involves political opponents, you seem ideologically opposed to making rational distinctions between them.
In your humble opinion, was John Stuart Mill, whom many consider an important liberal thinker, incapable of demonstrating rational thought in his published works? Was Albert Einstein incapable of rational thought? And what about Thomas Jefferson?
Right-wingers do not hold a monopoly on the capacity for rational thought, although very few lack the skill set the way all leftists do.
Leftists are heterogeneous human beings who vary widely in their skill sets, Nonetheless, you make the categorical assertion here that all leftists, whatever their genetic heritage, lack the skill set for rational thought. But you also asserted that liberals are arguably capable of rational thought. But, since liberals are leftists, then, in your opinion, they lack the skill set for rational thought, and, if they lack the skill set for rational thought, they cannot be capable of rational thought, arguably or otherwise. Thus, in attempting to be rational, you contradict yourself.
Yet you have only proved that you are incapable of rational thought. Originally you said that what Biden said in the debate about Cheney made no sense, yet you are now engaged in debating the nuances of it at length.
I stand by my remarks about Biden's brazen imbecility. Indulging in your "nuance" guesswork about what Biden "intended to say, but didn't" as if it were the the case apparent merely puts your own brazen imbecility in his mouth.
Standing by remarks that cannot be rationally sustained is not rational behavior. My so-called nuance guesswork is the highly probable interpretation of his words, unless you are dogmatically committed to the position that he is an imbecile.
You started out by saying Article I has nothing to do with the Vice President, yet it plainly gives a definition of the Vice President's role in government.
It does indeed give a definition of the VP's role in the US Senate. The US Senate is not the Executive branch. Nor is this power to break tie votes in the Senate the VP's only role in government, which are [sic] primarily within the Executive branch.
If, as you now admit, Article I of the Constitution does specify a role of the VP, it cannot be rationally claimed, as you did, that Article I has nothing to do with the VP. You are evidently unable to understand that you contradict yourself.
Now you distort what I said and, of course, you manage to demonstrate your lack of reading skills yet again.
I distorted your words no more than you distorted Z's words.
I was paraphrasing Z’s contentions, not distorting.
Disingenuously, you obfuscate the meaning of transparent government by pretending it involves disclosing classified information about undercover or intelligence operations.
You said it in your own words, remember?
Remember that I was paraphrasing.
No, the question is: Should a government official have the power to withhold documents that may be evidence of ethical misconduct?
Should the US government have faked the Apollo moon landings with alien technology exploited from the Roswell UFO crash?
No, beamish, in an operation directed from the executive office of the VP, the U.S. government should fake evidence of plentiful intelligent life indigenous to earth, since a large segment of the American public sees no potential for danger when a Vice-President interprets the U.S. Constitution to suit himself.
Post a Comment