Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/2/08 11:56 PM, Joshiwa wrote:

At 10/2/08 11:49 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:

Way to overlook the point:

At 10/2/08 11:36 PM, Joshiwa wrote:

This is exactly what the McCain campaign thinks of America, that we are dumb. Se thinks : by using "glam" she is going to win over votes but in reality it insults us when what we really want is answers which she could not give.

Were not discussing who answers what questions what way, were discussing how they send that message through appeal. Throwing in which one does it to be correct is a whole different story.

Yes we are and have been the entire time, it just shows that you have no counter for this because its the truth.

You quoted me saying, "Look when it comes to getting a message across the average person doesn't know any better to tell if it's right or wrong, but they remember things that stick out. Her being glamful did just that."

I was specifically talking about how they get their message out.

You then said, "This is exactly what the McCain campaign thinks of America, that we are dumb. Se thinks by using "glam" she is going to win over votes but in reality it insults us when what we really want is answers which she could not give."

I was responding to the, "This is exactly what the McCain campaign thinks of America, that we are dumb. Se thinks by using "glam" she is going to win over votes"

Basically I stayed within the bounds I set up for myself. So yeah sorry for not continuing what you tacked on there.

I have not noticed it, only the fact that he stands for change and has a plan. But forget it I will give you that but the fact remains that it fails in comparison to how Palin is using it as the basis of her entire campaign and the fact McCain is trying to leech off of it.

I wont deny it, their both shoving it in our throats, but Palin is pushing it harder.

At 10/2/08 11:49 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Way to overlook the point:

Way to try and dodge your way out of the debate as usual.

At 10/2/08 11:58 PM, Musician wrote:

At 10/2/08 11:51 PM, cHunter wrote: She's the only one out of the four of them with executive experience.

Shes also the only one out of the four of them who absolutely ass backwards retarded.

ass backwards retarded

Now THAT is actually funny.

Anyway, yeah, executive in a STATE position, but not in a FEDERAL position. The be honest, a Senator is about the same experience-wise as a governor, if not more so. Senators are also typically far more experienced in dealing with foreign policy, something that is immensely important in the upcoming election. Governors don't deal with other countries, really.

Besides, even if she IS the only one with "executive experience", she's only the running mate of someone who doesn't have any "executive experience". She's not the one going to be president.

At 10/2/08 11:51 PM, cHunter wrote:

At 10/2/08 11:49 PM, BetaOrionis wrote: It is if your state has a lower population than some cities.

That point makes no sense. That's like saying a couple that has one child knows nothing about parenting whereas a couple with twenty children know a great deal. The population of her state is irrelevant.

I think it's incredibly relevant. Besides, a couple with one child is only used to dealing with one kind of child. They would be clueless on the handling of a child with different needs, not to mention they probably can't handle multiple children at once. Similarly, Palin isn't experienced with making bigger, more complex decisions, that effect more than one kind of person. She can only handle problems that involve hockey moms, and doesn't seem to have a grasp of other issues, such as the economy (BAD Wallstreet! BAD!) or foreign policy.

I was referring to the off chance that McCain kicks the bucket. Palin would have to lead. I notice that she seemed somewhat evasive when dealing with the question of what she'd do if that situation came to pass. Not that she was particularly clear on most issues anyway.

She's the only one out of the four of them with executive experience.

Her experience has been limited in scope, for the reasons I provided above.

At 10/3/08 12:02 AM, Musician wrote:

At 10/2/08 11:49 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Way to overlook the point:

Way to try and dodge your way out of the debate as usual.

Way to go off on a tangent and troll a thread like usual.
Why do you have such a problem admitting your wrong?

At 10/3/08 12:08 AM, SuperDeagle wrote: Way to go off on a tangent and troll a thread like usual.
Why do you have such a problem admitting your wrong?

I'm going off on a tangent? You've completely refused to stay on topic, opting to give pathetic retorts like "way to miss the point durr hurr" rather than proper responses. And I find it endlessly amusing that you accuse me of being a troll and then proceed to post something as inflammatory as " Why do you have such a problem admitting your wrong?". You're a total hypocrite.

Not only that but your argument is completely unsupported. Obama does not run his campaign completely on "glam" because he's actually able to actually make and present coherent arguments regarding the issues, something that both you and Palin apparently cannot do.

Well, regardless of the fact of whether or not she was the governor of a large or small state, she was still a bad governor. She took gubernatorial power into her own hands, thinking it means she can give personal favors, and supported ridiculous, costly bills like the Bridge to Nowhere and a bill that observes crab's breeding habits. Not to mention implementing a policy that charges sexual assault victims for the investigations into what happened to them.

So that destroys her credentials somewhat I think.

What it really boils down to is this: who ever you like, you hate the other more.

What Palin should of done is distanced the McCain ticket from the Bush administration, which she didn't. That would of helped the GOP a lot.

Also the VP comment didn't help either.

Palins problem to me here from the bits I managed to catch (haven't been able to watched end to end, so if for anyone that will invalidate my opinion, toodles, thanks for reading this far), is that she's too hung up on catchphrases. She keeps using "maverick" "change" "gee I'm so folksy" and it felt to me like even if she was making a point I could potentially get behind, and I'd like to follow her logic, she throws out some catchphrase or part of the persona or character either she or her party have crafted for her. I don't feel like I've seen the real Sarah Palin, I feel like I'm just watching someone play a character not someone who really is committed to speaking on an issue, this is someone who's committed to sticking to the script, and promoting the character she's being asked to play.

I felt myself agreeing more with Biden, it felt like he was much more comfortable with the ideas he was spouting, and there was less of that idea of "let me keep spouting the same old rhetoric". To me, a debate should be where you tell me what your about, and the kind of things you support. I don't want a lot of rhetoric and a lot of buzzwords going around. I felt Biden accomplished that, but Palin did not.

I only caught one mistake from Biden, where he said McCain voted 50 times for clean energy, then later stated he voted 20 against it. He probably meant to say Obama.

I literally cringed every single time she referred to McCain as "The Maverick."

I cringed through most of the debate. It was sickening. If only Biden was running for President, I would vote for that ticket, good Lord. Palin looked like a deer in the headlights. Every single one of her responses seemed totally out of place and rehearsed. It was terrible. Biden absolutely chewed her up and spat her out without appearing like he was trying. Honestly, it wouldn't have surprised me if Biden had only prepared the day before.

I have never been more pissed off at a candidate than I am at Palin. I feel like this is an egregious offense to our political system that people will even DEFEND her incompetence simply because she's on the Republican ticket. She might possibly be the worst Vice Presidential candidate ever, and that's even including LBJ. Yes, I went there. She has no business being involved in politics on any level. I'll let her have Alaska. After all, they've elected Ted Stevens for how many fucking terms? That man is the very definition of gross incompetence.

But, after all, what can you expect from a state that pays people to live there.

Probably the dumbest line I've ever heard on a nationally televised debate.

At 10/3/08 01:34 AM, Gunter45 wrote:

She might possibly be the worst Vice Presidential candidate ever, and that's even including LBJ. Yes, I went there.

LBJ WAS A GOOD MAN.

Seriously, I like LBJ. He may have fucked up on the Vietnam situation, but so did everyone in his fucking cabinet. He was so full of grief over Vietnam that when he left office, he pretty much shut down and died from regret shortly thereafter. He did some good things in the Senate, and as president as well. And demographically speaking, since he was a Texas Democrat, he rounded out the JFK ticket nicely, which was good strategy. LBJ was a GOOD pick for VP. Palin and LBJ aren't even CLOSE to being in the same league.

Palin did great! Biden was awful!

Go soccer moms!

At 10/2/08 12:20 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 10/2/08 12:09 PM, Contipec wrote: Palin is going to lose ryally. If I were Palin, I would just resign from the VP spot. God, what an idiot woman. And her 17 year old daughter is pregnant I mean come on what values does Palin transmit that isn't total shit?

I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm getting tired of this attack on Palin. A parent can only influence a child so much without locking her up in a cage or basement.

I disagree, if one of your kids get pregnant, you are a less than ordinary parent. Most parents I know (including my own) have managed to keep their kids off drugs, not pregnant and academically sound. That's the average parent, if you can't meet the criteria, then you are below average.

At 10/2/08 11:47 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:
They both brought up voting records a lot, and in my opinion, the entire debate was too centered on the Presidential candidates than it was on the credentials of the VP candidates. They both spent too much time talking about their running mate.

Hate to break it to you but isn't that what the point was.

Also Palin was probably the worst thing I've ever seen. Fucking trainwreck.

You know a politician is shit when they have to re-use catchy phrases and words to cover-up their lack of skill. Seriously, how many times did Palin use the word "Maverick" and how often does she talk about being a 'hockey mom' or 'soccer mom' - I don't see how someone who her daughter get pregnant lecture us about her skills as a parent to promote herself as a vice president.
It's like debating the benefits of having a no-name singer undertake a career as a nuclear physicist. It's totally off topic.

At 10/3/08 12:54 AM, Musician wrote:

At 10/3/08 12:08 AM, SuperDeagle wrote: Way to go off on a tangent and troll a thread like usual.
Why do you have such a problem admitting your wrong?

I'm going off on a tangent? You've completely refused to stay on topic, opting to give pathetic retorts like "way to miss the point durr hurr" rather than proper responses. And I find it endlessly amusing that you accuse me of being a troll and then proceed to post something as inflammatory as " Why do you have such a problem admitting your wrong?". You're a total hypocrite.

Please look at what you type next time. You ARE taking this thread on a tangent, all the while being a hypocrite for the exact same things your accusing me of.
Next time don't just jump into a discussing you have no idea about.

Not only that but your argument is completely unsupported. Obama does not run his campaign completely on "glam" because he's actually able to actually make and present coherent arguments regarding the issues, something that both you and Palin apparently cannot do.

Read again, I never said Obama ran his campaign on glam. Now your sticking words in my mouth. And once again we are not arguing over issues, we were arguing over presentation.
Whose being coherent again?

Biden won the debate, no questions asked. Although to be honest I thought Palin would mess up completely, but she did OK although I do have a few complaints:

She strayed off the topic and never answered a question straight on. She often repeated catchphrases and facts as some other people in this thread have already pointed out. She seemed to just be reading a script that someone else wrote for her. She really didn't seem to know too much about what she was talking about although here one strong topic was energy. Although I suppose you have to know that being governor of Alaska.

Just watched the debate, which I had recorded. Biden definatly won the debate, but that doesn't really mean he scored a point for the Obama campaign. People had such low expectations of Palin, anything short of her completely humiliating herself would have been considered good. And to give her credit, she did better than I had expected. Did anyone notice that the McCain/Palin ticket has some problem with looking at their opponent during a debate? McCain didn't do it in the first presidential debate, and Palin didn't appear to be looking at Biden either, though she did better than McCain when it came to visuals. In the context of the debate, Biden one, but strategically it was a draw. I don't think either campaign benefitted from this.

At 10/3/08 03:28 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 10/2/08 11:47 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote:
They both brought up voting records a lot, and in my opinion, the entire debate was too centered on the Presidential candidates than it was on the credentials of the VP candidates. They both spent too much time talking about their running mate.

Hate to break it to you but isn't that what the point was.

Yeah, but I wanted them to go at each other's throats and leave the victor covered in their victim's blood, holding their still beating heart over their head, blood dripping from their chins.

I feel like we have enough attention on the Presidential candidates' stances, since they debate each other more than once on their own. I want to see the inner workings of the VP candidates in the same way.

Biden won, if you think otherwise you're an idiot (I'm sorry but when it came to this particular debate, there's no competition).

At 10/3/08 04:35 PM, GiantDouche wrote: Biden won, if you think otherwise you're an idiot

Wow, you need to chill out and get rid of that pointless and unnecessary anger that is inside you.

Try meditating.

Basically, Biden supported his statements with numbers and facts, whereas Palin used advertising tactics like being that soccer mom and saying things like "Its time to fight for middle classes" without saying how. Last time I checked Small business owners are usually well off in the first place, Middle americans are usually the people that work in factories, cubicals, marketing, and airports and shit.

Palin stated what her and McCain are going to do but in a misleading way. The Goal is to imply "We are going to make policies in favor of the wealthy to get wealthier so they can expand and make low paying jobs" While saying "Its time to fight for middle and working class americans, we'll help the small business owners like you me and everyone else".

Its all a Bush-reagen esque plan, and I'm saying that to infringe the "8 years of the same" bull shit.

Lol, I started a new thread, but apparently all VP Debate info has to go here so here's a repost:

Call them what you will: lies, misspeaking, muddling facts. The Fact of the matter is that Joe Biden stretched the truth quite a few times during last night's VP Debate against Sarah Palin. I welcome everybody checking my facts on this list. Read it and decide the truth for yourself:

---Biden claimed that we spend more in one month in Iraq, than we have spent in in seven years in Afghanistan. Bullshit. He was off by 2000%.

---Joe Biden said that Cheney was unfamiliar with Article 1 of the Constitution which outlines the executive branch and the vice presidents role. Sorry but Article 1 deals with the Legislative Branch (although VPs are very briefly mentioned)

---Biden claimed McCain voted against the Violence Against Women Act. True. So did many other Representatives and Senators. Because it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL as deemed by the Supreme Court.

---Biden Claims that McCain wants to give a $4 Billion dollar tax cut to oil companies. True, but this tax cut applies to all corporations in America, not just a single company.

---Joe Claims that Obama did not vote for a budget resolution that would tax families making as little as $42,000 a year. The fact is that both Biden and Obama voted for this on March 14th.

---Biden claimed the Pakistan possessed nuclear missiles that were capable of hitting Israel. False. They are out of range by over 1,000 miles.

---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 that specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it at the time.---Biden claims that he is pro drilling. But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and has previously compared offshore drilling to "raping" the Outer Continental Shelf."

---Biden says he's always been for clean coal. But the truth is that he just recently told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America. Biden has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate. He has even claimed the there is no such thing as clean coal.

---Joe Biden claimed that McCain voted against alternative energy 23 times. A claim that is greatly exaggerated according to FactCheck.org---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.

---Biden claimed, and made a point to repeat several times, 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.

---Joe Biden said that John McCain was "dead wrong on Iraq". But Biden voted to authorize the war the same as McCain, and he voted against the Surge which was supported by McCain and worked.

---Biden claimed that under Obama's tax plan taxes would be as low as they were under Reagan. FALSE. Income tax rates under Reagan were 28%. Obama's tax rates would match those under Bill Clinton, about 39.6%.

---Biden also claimed that people making $250,000 or less a year would not "see a single, solitary penny of taxes." False. Obama's tax plan taxes those making $200,000 and up.

---Joe Biden said: "Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years." Kind of difficult to do when Katie's restaurant has been out of business for at least 25 years. Biden's a little out of touch with main street that he is so "fond" of.

These are the facts people. I'm not claiming that the Republican's were 100% accurate either. I'm just getting this information out to people (along with many other sources) so the voters are informed of the Truth come election day. I welcome a similar list of Republican blunders.

What do you guys think?

At least he actually answered the questions instead of making a mockery of our values.

And also. She referenced his dead wife.

Quite distasteful.

At 10/3/08 10:17 PM, Chavic wrote: What do you guys think?

I think I'm in love.