The Watering Hole

I noticed some of you posted in the "Palin is..." thread, but I felt it deserved its own thread.

I thought that Palin looked a lot like someone who had rehearsed a series of talking points, dropped a lot of "g"s off "-ing" words to appear more folksy, and was pretty mean-spirited when it came to addressing any sort of issue extemporaneously. Plus she didn't answer the questions, she just kept going to her talking points. That's not debate...that's just giving a speech in the middle of a debate.

If I had been doing Gwen Ifill's job, I would have stopped both of them when they got off-topic...which would have meant shutting Palin up on just about every single question.

Palin was viewed as the winner to the uninformed because she knew how to dress it up in a manner that appealed to those who don't have any sort of depth of knowledge of issues. Biden smiled very kindly through a lot of really shitty statements made by Palin, and he didn't take the bait, which I think is a good thing, though I really wish he had ripped into her misstatements more than he did.

Overall, it's a draw, simply because information doesn't always beat presentation, especially when you're swimming in a sea of ignorance.

I thought it was cute when Palin gave her "shout-out". I think that's a first. I also liked it when Biden broke up a little talking about his kids, and it was a good defense against Palin's implication that Biden and Obama don't know middle class issues.

Palin did a shit job at defending McCain's policies, but she did spout the talking points well. I didn't like the winking at the camera. What the fuck was that?

Biden definitely looked way more presidential, though...that wasn't even a contest.

Overall, an apparent draw is a victory for Palin, since she was woefully unequipped to really debate on any sort of intellectual level.

But she had her talking points down...

I didn't hate watching it, but there were times when Palin said things and I put my head in my hands because I knew that her bullshit would appeal to those who don't know the issues.

And "White flag of surrender?" Honky, please!  

Tripper

One of the guys playing darts last night said they shouldn't broadcast the debate live.  They should first go through each statement made by the participants, verify its accuracy, then edit the debate to include big checkmarks and X's along with the labels "True!" and "Not!" (feel free to imagine hearing a ding for true and a buzzer for the false answers ;) ).

I think they both did what they were supposed to.

Biden showed up to present the Obama plan, and to talk about McCain being 4 more years of Bush.  He did both well.  He didn't get off message, he didn't run on forever, and he didn't jump in to correct or demean Palin.

Palin, on the other hand, showed up to defend Sarah Palin.  She did that well.  Other than the fact that she posited that a Civil War general was leading our efforts in Iraq, she made no major flubs.  She also didn't answer half the questions that were asked, instead talking about herself, inserting the word "maverick," talking about Alaska, winking, and talking about energy policy.  Which, though it is not typical debate style, is what you do when you can't talk about every topic.

That one candidate showed up to debate the questions, and the other showed up to debate the public's image of her, should tell you all you need to know about these candidates.

Hook, I was going to say (even though you already commented in the other thread) that you should wait three days before you make your comment.  It seems like three days is the threshold for you to get clarity on issues.

My thoughts on the VP Debate:

She is definitely better lookin' than him.   ;D ;D

DreamTheaterRules — Oct 03, 2008My thoughts on the VP Debate:

She is definitely better lookin' than him.   ;D ;D

If it's the major reason for the vote, they should have choice a top model !!   ;D ;D
No brain, nice tits !!   ;D

actually, I think she's got a brain too, but that was more a play on the way she kept leaving the "G" off words that ended in "ing."  Which is something my daughter and I tease my wife about a lot too, but she's not running for office.  Does have a govt. job though.   :)

DreamTheaterRules — Oct 03, 2008actually, I think she's got a brain too, but that was more a play on the way she kept leaving the "G" off words that ended in "ing."  Which is something my daughter and I tease my wife about a lot too, but she's not running for office.  Does have a govt. job though.   :)

You betcha!

charger — Oct 03, 2008I think they both did what they were supposed to.

Biden showed up to present the Obama plan, and to talk about McCain being 4 more years of Bush.  He did both well.  He didn't get off message, he didn't run on forever, and he didn't jump in to correct or demean Palin.

Palin, on the other hand, showed up to defend Sarah Palin.  She did that well.  Other than the fact that she posited that a Civil War general was leading our efforts in Iraq, she made no major flubs.  She also didn't answer half the questions that were asked, instead talking about herself, inserting the word "maverick," talking about Alaska, winking, and talking about energy policy.  Which, though it is not typical debate style, is what you do when you can't talk about every topic.

That one candidate showed up to debate the questions, and the other showed up to debate the public's image of her, should tell you all you need to know about these candidates.

Hook, I was going to say (even though you already commented in the other thread) that you should wait three days before you make your comment.  It seems like three days is the threshold for you to get clarity on issues.

So were you playing?  :D

http://palinbingo.com./

(Courtesy of August! :) )

I think this quote, from a guy who was blogging the debate for fivethirtyeight.com, sums it up.

8:42 CDT: To be completely frank if that were anyone other than Sarah Palin on stage, this would be regarded as a blowout at this point.

Charger

The only reason I call it a draw is because Palin actually handled herself very well, and didn't fall on her face. I was impressed with that, not that I really care. ;D

Hookbender — Oct 04, 2008Charger

The only reason I call it a draw is because Palin actually handled herself very well, and didn't fall on her face. I was impressed with that, not that I really care. ;D

That is highly illogical.
A contest in debate is not won because someone didn't fall on their face.
Just because she performed better than you thought she might, does not make it a draw.

"The only reason I call it a draw"

Shows you didn't include any other criteria to come to your conclusion. Not a good idea.

"The only reason I call it a draw is because Palin actually handled herself very well"

I don't think so. But better than I expected,not "very" well.
Why would I say that? Because she didn't answer many questions. She used untrue "facts" and distorted facts,among other things.

"The only reason I call it a draw is because Palin actually handled herself very well, and didn't fall on her face"

Wow,you don't demand very much.

"I was impressed with that, not that I really care."

Doesn't take much to impress you does it?
If you don't care then why do you respond?

Obviously you care enough to write about it.
Obviously you wanted her to win so much that anything she did,other than "fall on her face"makes her equal to her compitition.
You don't sound like a very fair judge.
Obviously you are very biased.
In other words...you are not critical in your assesment. :-*

Was the smiley just for the last sentence? That's how I took it. Actually just the last half of the last sentence.
The rest seems like your normal way of thinking.
I answer the whole thing because I believe your only half joking.

Think about this. If you and tripper were debating and I expected you to fall on your face.
Just because you may have surprised me a few times and didn't fall on your face......that doesn't mean you guys were equal. ;D

Just in case you try and use the smiley excuse again and to prove a point,let's look at your post on the other thread.

I think Palin did very well. Simply because I was expecting Biden to crush her. I also thought Palin would really mess up as she has in the past.  

The thing I noticed most....it seemed that Biden was pissed much of the time that Palin was talking. His face was red, even his head.  ;D I wonder if anyone else noticed that.

But really, it was shit. A lot of finger pointing. No new info. Very unimformative debate. It was all about, will Palin show up with knowledge, or will she fall on her face again? She showed up.

Palin looked new and fresh again, Biden looked like a experienced, yet shocked at times, politician. Seemed he was on his heals most of the time but had a better grasp of facts for sure.

Another draw in my book. Of course, that's a win for Obama, kinda.

Your post in this this thread just reinterates the first three sentences in the post on the other one. No smileys.

The thing I noticed most....it seemed that Biden was pissed much of the time that Palin was talking

I didn't get that impression nor did I hear any news cast that noticed it either. Nor did anybody here voice thier agreement.

His face was red, even his head.  ;D I wonder if anyone else noticed that.

I didn't.
If it was it could have been caused from hot lights,sunburn,rash,or a a reaction that didn't have anything to do with anger.
Or maybe the color on your TV needs adjusting.

But really, it was shit

Really? Lets look at your reasons why you thought they were shit.

A lot of finger pointing

Shouldn't the failures,lies,and incorrect statements of your competitor be exposed. It's evidence that the other guy may not be the best person for the job which bolsters the others position. If it's true,nothing wrong with that.

No new info.

That depends on what one knew before they saw the debate. That may be your opinion,but you can only claim that for yourself.Do you have "all" information about them?

Very unimformative debate

Same as above. Also redundant.
Graphs are also very uninformative to you as well. ;D

It was all about, will Palin show up with knowledge, or will she fall on her face again? She showed up.

It was? Perhaps to you it was,not necessarily to others.
Your right....she did show up. She was there.
Or do you mean she showed Biden up??

Palin looked new and fresh again

Hmmm....perhaps. But when did you see here when she wasn't?
She's only been doing this for like how long?.....five weeks? ;D

Biden looked like a experienced, yet shocked at times, politician

How does one look experienced? But what I really want to know is....Have you ever been experienced? ;D well...I have!

I didn't see any shock.

Seemed he was on his heals most of the time but had a better grasp of facts for sure.

Ok...I guess I agree.




The polls showed Biden won,especially among undecided.










 

pickmaster60 — Oct 04, 2008[quote author=Hookbender link=1223041662/0#9 date=1223078584]Charger

The only reason I call it a draw is because Palin actually handled herself very well, and didn't fall on her face. I was impressed with that, not that I really care. ;D

That is highly illogical.
A contest in debate is not won because someone didn't fall on their face.
Just because she performed better than you thought she might, does not make it a draw.

"The only reason I call it a draw"

Shows you didn't include any other criteria to come to your conclusion. Not a good idea.

"The only reason I call it a draw is because Palin actually handled herself very well"

I don't think so. But better than I expected,not "very" well.
Why would I say that? Because she didn't answer many questions. She used untrue "facts" and distorted facts,among other things.

"The only reason I call it a draw is because Palin actually handled herself very well, and didn't fall on her face"

Wow,you don't demand very much.

"I was impressed with that, not that I really care."

Doesn't take much to impress you does it?
If you don't care then why do you respond?

Obviously you care enough to write about it.
Obviously you wanted her to win so much that anything she did,other than "fall on her face"makes her equal to her compitition.
You don't sound like a very fair judge.
Obviously you are very biased.
In other words...you are not critical in your assesment. :-*

Was the smiley just for the last sentence? That's how I took it. Actually just the last half of the last sentence.
The rest seems like your normal way of thinking.
I answer the whole thing because I believe your only half joking.

Think about this. If you and tripper were debating and I expected you to fall on your face.
Just because you may have surprised me a few times and didn't fall on your face......that doesn't mean you guys were equal. ;D











 



Obviously you don't understand debate. "You" don't determine the rules for conclusion for any other person, only yourself.

There can be 100 people watching a debate and every person alsmost would give you a different answer for why they thought whoever won. We give our opinions, but we check some facts, and probably know more than the average voter who is swayed by their favorite news channel as much as the debate itself.

For me.....I'm not voting for McCain, or Palin. I don't have to check facts because I could care less what she says or thinks, my mind was made up agaist McCain long ago.

My conclusion was based on how well she handled herself. She just said what the Bush clan has been saying for 8 years. On gay marriage, the war, the economy, and added that McCain wasn't changing his plans even with the economy in the shape it's in.

If you looked into the facts, Biden would have won. If he were debating probably anyone else but Palin. She is the celeberty candidate right now. This probably was her last shot to help McCain and she did pretty well.

The conclusion of who is the winner in this debate isn't necessarily based on logic and reason. It would be with Obama and McCain, but not Biden and Palin. Emotion plays a big part because we have the first women VP candidate who happens to be the huge underdog among other reasons. She was up agaist a experienced opponent who should have been able to clean the floors with her. He wasn't able to do that, nobody else would have either. So, I gave it a draw in reality, but people who study will probably give the win to Biden.

Basically, anyone who was worried about Palin and wanted to vote for McCain got to feeling a little better. She shored up the people who wanted to vote for McCain. But I don't think for a second she inspired anyone to change their vote because she actually showed up and spoke half decent.

" Overall, it's a draw, simply because information doesn't always beat presentation, especially when you're swimming in a sea of ignorance."

I agree with this opinion from Tripper.

And if your through editing, yeah, I think the way my post in the other thread was written. What's the point?

Obviously you don't understand debate. "You" don't determine the rules for conclusion for any other person, only yourself.

There can be 100 people watching a debate and every person alsmost would give you a different answer for why they thought whoever won. We give our opinions, but we check some facts, and probably know more than the average voter who is swayed by their favorite news channel as much as the debate itself.

For me.....I'm not voting for McCain, or Palin. I don't have to check facts because I could care less what she says or thinks, my mind was made up agaist McCain long ago.  

All of the above is irrelevant.
But.....How long ago?

My conclusion was based on how well she handled herself

......and because she didn't fall on her face. No reason to state it again. You've said it three times now. I know.

The conclusion of who is the winner in this debate isn't necessarily based on logic and reason

Not for you,I agree.

It would be with Obama and McCain, but not Biden and Palin.

How is that?

Emotion plays a big part because we have the first women VP candidate who happens to be the huge underdog among other reasons

For you emotion may play a big part in it. Perhaps even lust.
That just depends on if you are an emotional voter or a logical reasonable voter. Or some other kind.
You certainly can't answer for anyone else.

She was up agaist a experienced opponent who should have been able to clean the floors with her

Not by all accounts. He may very well could have cleaned the floors with her. He may have other reasons why he didn't.

He wasn't able to do that, nobody else would have either.

Really? How do you know that?  Nobody??

Basically, anyone who was worried about Palin and wanted to vote for McCain got to feeling a little better.

Anyone?? I don't think that is necessarily true. I heard a McCain supporter today on NPR who said it didn't make him feel better.
You however..... sound like you feel better.

So, I gave it a draw in reality, but people who study will probably give the win to Biden.

Who's reality? Did you study?
Perhaps those who thought he won give it to Biden. He did win in the polls.

" Overall, it's a draw, simply because information doesn't always beat presentation, especially when you're swimming in a sea of ignorance."

I agree with this opinion from Tripper

I agree with him as well. You think how she handled herself ,that is, HER PRESENTATION made it  a draw.
Instead of information.


You are swimming!   ;D ;D

This whole topic is debatable. :D

Pick

You've absolutely lost you mind. That post is rediculous.

I gave my opinion on a debate. I don't care if you like it or not. But it's evident your just trying to argue.

If you have anything credible that you disagree with, I'll respond. But your childish attitude toward this subject is stupid. I don't have time for it.

Oh, by the way, you didn't go line by line....kinda left out some stuff. Maybe you should add those to it on your next post. ;D ;D Were those to logical for you to respond to or something? ;D

I think your taking this just a little to seriously. Maybe you should take a break.  ;D ;D

Hookbender — Oct 04, 2008Pick

You've absolutely lost you mind. That post is rediculous.

I gave my opinion on a debate. I don't care if you like it or not. But it's evident your just trying to argue.

If you have anything credible that you disagree with, I'll respond. But your childish attitude toward this subject is stupid. I don't have time for it.

Oh, by the way, you didn't go line by line....kinda left out some stuff. Maybe you should add those to it on your next post. ;D ;D Were those to logical for you to respond to or something? ;D

I think your taking this just a little to seriously. Maybe you should take a break.  ;D ;D

No, I didn't think they were too logical.....just irrelevant.

Why would you say I have lost my mind? What do you mean by that?
How is it "rediculous"?
What is not credible in my posts? Specifically.
How is it childish?

Hookbender — Oct 04, 2008If you looked into the facts, Biden would have won. If he were debating probably anyone else but Palin. She is the celeberty candidate right now. This probably was her last shot to help McCain and she did pretty well.

First, something I noticed from your first post.  Biden looked perfectly normal to me.  Not red--maybe there is something wrong with your TV?  And definitely not angry.  In fact he looked pretty darn jovial to me, and at times downright friendly.

Second, your logic for judging the debate is bizarre.  If two people take a test where answering a questions is the only requisite required to get a point for the question, and one person only answers half the questions, and another person answers all the questions, who gets the higher score?  On this test, Sarah Palin evaded or rerouted almost half the answers, by my count.  The only people who thought she "answered" the questions that I have heard, or seen reflected in polls, were Republicans and conservative talk radio hosts, who wanted the answers to come out a certain way.

I once again will state the obvious--that Biden came to the debate to answer the questions and lay out the policy for the Obama-Biden administration, and Sarah Palin came to the debate to answer questions about Sarah Palin.  Under this umbrella of their own personal requirements, only one of those people "showed up" to the debate.  The other person came to a photo op.  

The conclusion of who is the winner in this debate isn't necessarily based on logic and reason. It would be with Obama and McCain, but not Biden and Palin. Emotion plays a big part because we have the first women VP candidate who happens to be the huge underdog among other reasons.

Umm... Geraldine Ferraro ran for vice president 24 years ago.

She was up agaist a experienced opponent who should have been able to clean the floors with her. He wasn't able to do that, nobody else would have either. So, I gave it a draw in reality, but people who study will probably give the win to Biden.

Not true.  He did mop the floor with her, in that, he answered the questions, and he answered them on topic.  The only question where neither of them really answered was when they were asked their flaw, and whether their flaw was the same as the one that is portrayed in the media.  Biden at least gave this a shot.  Palin didn't even come close to beginning to answer it.

The polls bear this out.  In CNN's poll, 87% said Biden was prepared to be VP, compared to Palin's 42%.  In CBS' poll, and overwhelming 97% said Biden was prepared to be VP, to Palin's 55%.

Really well written:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04herbert.html?hp

Where is the evidence that Governor Palin even understands these complex and enormously challenging problems? During the debate she twice referred to General McKiernan as “McClellan.” Neither Ms. Ifill nor Senator Biden corrected her.

But after Senator Biden suggested that John McCain’s answer to the nation’s energy problems was to “drill, drill, drill,” Ms. Palin promptly pointed out, as if scoring a point, that “the chant is ‘Drill, baby, drill!’ ”

How’s that for perspective? The credit markets are frozen. Our top general in Afghanistan is dialing 911. Americans are losing jobs by the scores of thousands. And Sarah Palin is making sure we know that the chant is “drill, baby, drill!” not “drill, drill, drill.”

charger — Oct 04, 2008[quote author=Hookbender link=1223041662/0#11 date=1223088943]The conclusion of who is the winner in this debate isn't necessarily based on logic and reason. It would be with Obama and McCain, but not Biden and Palin. Emotion plays a big part because we have the first women VP candidate who happens to be the huge underdog among other reasons.

Umm... Geraldine Ferraro ran for vice president 24 years ago.



WE in the GOP. he h h eh

I thought Biden took this one simply because I liked him more after than I did before.  I had heard all of Palin's stuff verbatim already but only some of Biden's.  Plus he gets biddy points for "going there" for their campaign with his personal stuff while Palin's "personal stuff", ie glassy zone in on all the little people, feels a lil Stepfordish.  Her memorized/card reading performance in the debate paled in comparison to the latest Fox interview where she rattles off Supreme Court cases and waxes poetic with wondrous opinion while claiming she was just being "flippant" because she was "annoyed" during the Curic interview which is why she couldn't come up with any in the first place.  This McCampaign has been gacchhy and I don't just mean those weird noises he was making while claiming victory today.

You asked for it....Here it is.  

Obviously you don't understand debate

How is that obvious? What is the evidence?

"You" don't determine the rules for conclusion for any other person, only yourself.

I don't recall that I said I did.  This assertion is just another pointless statement.

There can be 100 people watching a debate and every person alsmost would give you a different answer for why they thought whoever won.

There could be 100 people watching a debate. It does not follow logically almost every person would give a diiferent answer. In fact I doubt that would happen. But it could.
But you don't know that It would do you? If you do think you know that.....How did you come to this conclusion?

We give our opinions, but we check some facts, and probably know more than the average voter who is swayed by their favorite news channel as much as the debate itself.

Yes,we do give our opinions. Some are better than others. Some are based on logical,rational thought and some are not.
Based on your arguments,you seem to have a favorite news channel.....FOX.
Does this favorite channel make you know more than the average voter?
I don't know that I'm more informed than the average voter. I may be more informed than the average voter in Alabama. That's not saying much.

For me.....I'm not voting for McCain, or Palin.

You do make that statement a lot. Why do you feel the need to?

I don't have to check facts because I could care less what she says or thinks, my mind was made up agaist McCain long ago.  

Yeah....you don't have to check facts. But it's a good way to make a decision. They come in handy.
Since you don't care what she says and you have made up your mind already.....Your closed to any new data. Again,not very smart or logical.
How long ago did you come to this conclusion?

Isn't this way of thinking(not needing facts) Very similar to not needing the facts on the graph you dismissed?
People who are logical want facts.

People who are logical would base a decision on content wouldn't they?

Checked this out yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kevin_baas

pickmaster60 — Oct 04, 2008You asked for it....Here it is.  

Obviously you don't understand debate

How is that obvious? What is the evidence?

"You" don't determine the rules for conclusion for any other person, only yourself.

I don't recall that I said I did.  This assertion is just another pointless statement.

There can be 100 people watching a debate and every person almost would give you a different answer for why they thought whoever won.

There could be 100 people watching a debate. It does not follow logically almost every person would give a different answer. In fact I doubt that would happen. But it could.
But you don't know that It would do you? If you do think you know that.....How did you come to this conclusion?

We give our opinions, but we check some facts, and probably know more than the average voter who is swayed by their favorite news channel as much as the debate itself.

Yes,we do give our opinions. Some are better than others. Some are based on logical,rational thought and some are not.
Based on your arguments,you seem to have a favorite news channel.....FOX.
Does this favorite channel make you know more than the average voter?
I don't know that I'm more informed than the average voter. I may be more informed than the average voter in Alabama. That's not saying much.

For me.....I'm not voting for McCain, or Palin.

You do make that statement a lot. Why do you feel the need to?

I don't have to check facts because I could care less what she says or thinks, my mind was made up ageist McCain long ago.  

Yeah....you don't have to check facts. But it's a good way to make a decision. They come in handy.
Since you don't care what she says and you have made up your mind already.....Your closed to any new data. Again,not very smart or logical.
How long ago did you come to this conclusion?

Isn't this way of thinking(not needing facts) Very similar to not needing the facts on the graph you dismissed?
People who are logical want facts.

People who are logical would base a decision on content wouldn't they?

Checked this out yet?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kevin_baas



I know you don't have a clue about debate because you think you can change my opinion based on your set of guidelines. That's ridiculous. That's one reason I know your just trying to argue. This isn't a pointless opinion, it's a evident one. Let's use this place as an example. Tripper and I both called a draw. He used logic for his conclusion, I used a reality voter prospective, personal opinion, to draw a conclusion. Same results, different ways of arriving at that result.

My favorite news channel is NPR. Not fox.

I make the statement that I'm not voting for McCain, Palin, because people like you seem to think otherwise. I can still be fair to other candidates even if I'm not voting for them. I keep an open mind no matter my stance at the present time. I'm not close to any NEW data from the McCain camp, just to any typical Bush data they seem to keep pushing down America;s throat every chance they get. Just like Palin did during the debate.

Probably about 2 or so months ago, give or take. I really don't know for sure the exact date and time that decision was made. Sorry.

I've explained the graph situation already. I made a mistake and even apologized to Trip, Charger, and Fingers. If that isn't enough for you, and you think my mistake is unforgivable, that's your problem. I consider it a learning experience. It shows I still have work to do. Are you perfect?

I consider myself logical, but I'm also having to retrain my mind to think that way. I make mistakes, I learn by them and move on.

Seems to me you made a fool out of yourself the other night during your drunken rant and now you blame me for your foolish attack. Your post is full of aggressive anger, and childish picky ness. Your need to WIN is so obvious it's sick, to a degree. Before you criticize logic from anyone, correct your own, At least get consistent yourself. Tripper's post is never full of emotion and anger, even though he may be feeling that way at times. Read his post and compare them to yours. I may need to work on my logic skills, but you need to learn how to speak and discuss in a way that would make one want to discuss with you. You don't discuss, you attack. You get very petty.

I'm not telling you how to post, but if you expect me to respond to your post, at least make mature, adult like post.

Didn't you call this a draw yourself? Maybe not, but......

"She did a little better than I thought she would on the debate."
"I just like her. She'a chipper. Great personality."

"Otherwise I think the same."

I don't know what the same is. But it seems to me you thought almost just like I did. Completely emotional thoughts about her. How does that make you so supreme logically? Because you didn't actually say draw? What is the same? I think you feel some lust their Picko. Since you want her in the duke, as you said yourself. I say.....your full of shit! Sorry. I call bullshit cuz!

Didn't you call this a draw yourself? Maybe not, but......

"She did a little better than I thought she would on the debate."  
"I just like her. She'a chipper. Great personality."  
 
"Otherwise I think the same."

I don't know what the same is. But it seems to me you thought almost just like I did.

No,I didn't. I said I think the same.Same as what?
If you look at the beginning of the post,the very first post in that thread....That is what I think the same about.
Incompetent. And my view is still the same.Has remained the same throughout.

How in the world would you get that I had changed my mind?

I made that post right after the debate. within a few hours. I wasn't agreeing with anybody in that statement.I was the first to comment on it. Ya gotta pay attention to the timeline.

Completely emotional thoughts about her. How does that make you so supreme logically? Because you didn't actually say draw?

That's right I didn't say it was a draw because I didn't think that it was.
Just because I think she is hot and I like her personality doesn't mean I thought she won the debate or even that it made it a draw .
It doesn't make me supreme in any way.  
You come up with some bizzare  theories.  You assume way too much.
You make many unwarranted declarative statements.

Tripper and I both called a draw.

I guess we would have to let tripper clear that up for you but I'll try.
It doesn't sound like he's saying that to me.
The whole post sounded negative for Palin.
Is he stating that himself or talking about others perception it was? I took it as the latter.
Let's look at it in context.

Overall, it's a draw, simply because information doesn't always beat presentation, especially when you're swimming in a sea of ignorance.

I think he's saying that when one is swimming in ignorance ,presentation sometimes beats out information.

Swimming in ignorance....those are the people who don't know the issues and don't think clearly.

He also said "That's not debate...that's just giving a speech in the middle of a debate"

How could it be a draw if he's not even considering her as debating?  

If information doesn't always beat out presentation ;that means information  does many times .
But sometimes people get so drawn into presentation that the they don't pay enough attention to what is actually being said.

Has anyone else called it a draw other than you? Perhaps you are one of those who didn't pay attention to content.

Overall, an apparent draw is a victory for Palin, since she was woefully unequipped to really debate on any sort of intellectual level.

I took his apparent as :
appearing as such but not necessarily so; "for all his apparent wealth he had no money to pay the rent"

I think that since she was "woefully unequiped for debate on any sort of intellectual level."

Doesn't sound like he thought it was a draw.

In fact he said "I knew that her bullshit would appeal to those who don't know the issues."

Did her bullshit appeal to you? One would think so,as you thought it was a draw and thought she handled herself very well.

No....it seems to me like you misunderstood.

I used a reality voter prospective,

How would you define that? What is it?

Seems to me you made a fool out of yourself the other night during your drunken rant and now you blame me for your foolish attack. Your post is full of aggressive anger

Where is this aggressive anger??


It may be your opinion I was drunk,that doesn't mean it's true .

Before you criticize logic from anyone, correct your own, At least get consistent

Please show me where I'm being illogical so that I might correct it.
Please show me any inconsistencies so I can correct them.
I do it for you.

Hookbender:

apply some logic:

You were watching the Vice Presidential debate.  The WINNER of the vice presidential debate would be the person you came away, after the debate, feeling is most qualified to be Vice President, and become president if the President dies or is removed from office.  If you call it a draw, that means you feel that Joe Biden and Sarah Palin are EQUALLY QUALIFIED to be Vice President, and possibly President.

In my opinion, under those terms, Joe Biden clearly won the debate.  The only debate Palin won was as to whether she would take McCain even further down.  By any objective standard, can you rationally say that the debate was a draw, and that both candidates are equally prepared and qualified to be VP?  

I think Tripper's argument for a draw was flawed in that he did not present his terms.  In the terms I have highlighted above, I think he would agree with me that Joe Biden was not only the clear winner, but it wasn't even close.  If we are talking merely about expectations, Sarah Palin's incredibly low expectations made it easy for her to wink and smile her way past those.  But that is not winning the debate.

Just for reference...  ::)

de·bate      /dbet/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
–noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.  
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.  
3. deliberation; consideration.

(Of course, personally, I'd rather have Sarah on my staff.  ;) :D )

CraigBert — Oct 05, 2008

(Of course, personally, I'd rather have Sarah on my staff.  ;) :D )

Even if you were McCain?  She seemed a little too excited about the prospect of a Palin administration for my taste.  If I was McCain, I wouldn't drink from any glass that she'd handled.

First round:

CNN/Opinion Research: Biden 51% Palin 36%

CBS: Biden 46% Palin 21%

Fox: Biden 61% Palin 39%

SurveyUSA: Biden 51% Palin 32%

MediaCurves (registered Independents): Biden 67% Palin 33%

Rasmussen: Biden 45% Palin 37%

charger — Oct 05, 2008[quote author=CraigBert link=1223041662/25#26 date=1223183646]

(Of course, personally, I'd rather have Sarah on my staff.  ;) :D )

Even if you were McCain?  She seemed a little too excited about the prospect of a Palin administration for my taste.  If I was McCain, I wouldn't drink from any glass that she'd handled.


Please review that statement again, plant mind firmly in the gutter and take it literally.  ;) ::)

charger — Oct 05, 2008First round:

CNN/Opinion Research: Biden 51% Palin 36%

CBS: Biden 46% Palin 21%

Fox: Biden 61% Palin 39%

SurveyUSA: Biden 51% Palin 32%

MediaCurves (registered Independents): Biden 67% Palin 33%

Rasmussen: Biden 45% Palin 37%

Hookbender: Biden 50% Palin 50%

Fixed.  :D

heh heh he said staff

I've just found this on a French news site.......
I don't know if it's a fake or the real document she read many times on her desk... ;D ;D

I think Tripper's argument for a draw was flawed

If  you look at it taking in light of Hooks last post on the Palin is.... thread it makes more sense. It looked like he was making a response to Hook. Hook made the last post there and tripper made the first one here.

HAHAHA love the chart.

charger — Oct 05, 2008Hookbender:

apply some logic:

You were watching the Vice Presidential debate.  The WINNER of the vice presidential debate would be the person you came away, after the debate, feeling is most qualified to be Vice President, and become president if the President dies or is removed from office.  If you call it a draw, that means you feel that Joe Biden and Sarah Palin are EQUALLY QUALIFIED to be Vice President, and possibly President.

In my opinion, under those terms, Joe Biden clearly won the debate.  The only debate Palin won was as to whether she would take McCain even further down.  By any objective standard, can you rationally say that the debate was a draw, and that both candidates are equally prepared and qualified to be VP?  

I think Tripper's argument for a draw was flawed in that he did not present his terms.  In the terms I have highlighted above, I think he would agree with me that Joe Biden was not only the clear winner, but it wasn't even close.  If we are talking merely about expectations, Sarah Palin's incredibly low expectations made it easy for her to wink and smile her way past those.  But that is not winning the debate.

Perception Charger. See, that's where we differ. If you look at what was said, factually, Biden won, yes. I've already said that. But expectations from Palin were low, and she exceeded those which gave her an edge. Key thing I said. If you consider facts only, Biden won.

I'm not gonna assume why Tripper said what he did. I can only take him at his word. Our conclusion was the same, how we came to the conclusion was different in some regards, and the same based on perception.

It's just my opinion. I gave this opinion with an open mind. It's not a bg deal. ANd you have to remember, I'm for Biden. I like the man. I think he's a good choice for Obama because he has experience where Obama doesn't, especially in foreign policy and foreign affairs. I think I'm the only one here who said Biden was a good choice, or the first to say it anyway.

I think that whoever get's elected will only last 4 years. I doubt that either men will last longer than that. The country's in bad shape and I don't think it can be fixed in 4 years and American's won't understand that and vote for someone else no matter who's elected. I doubt anything will happen to McCain in that short period, so the possibility of Palin being President is very low, if not impossible.

It's just really not a big deal. And I didn't say Palin won the debate because she exceeded expectations.

pickmaster60 — Oct 05, 2008I think Tripper's argument for a draw was flawed

If  you look at it taking in light of Hooks last post on the Palin is.... thread it makes more sense. It looked like he was making a response to Hook. Hook made the last post there and tripper made the first one here.

HAHAHA love the chart.






Along with Pick's post right above mine.

I know you don't have a clue about debate because you think you can change my opinion based on your set of guidelines. That's ridiculous

No,I'm trying to change your way of thinking based the guidelines of logic,reason,and critical thinking.

It would be to your advantage to dispense with worring about if people are emotional,drunk,or angry ect. and concentrate your efforts on context,facts,relevence and content.

I would like to see you stop making unwarranted,unjustified declarative sentences that serves as fodder for those who think your way of thinking is bizzare and illogical .

   

I'm not gonna assume why Tripper said what he did. I can only take him at his word. Our conclusion was the same,

But first don't you need clarification on what he did say? I'm not convinced your conclusions were the same. Why are you?

Take him at his word?
Isn't that like a bible thumper saying he's going to take the bible as God's word?
No reason to think about it or take into considerationany other information. No reason to look at context.

You don't need to assume why tripper said what he did. You need to know what he meant.

pickmaster60 — Oct 05, 2008I know you don't have a clue about debate because you think you can change my opinion based on your set of guidelines. That's ridiculous

No,I'm trying to change your way of thinking based the guidelines of logic,reason,and critical thinking.

It would be to your advantage to dispense with worring about if people are emotional,drunk,or angry ect. and concentrate your efforts on context,facts,relevence and content.

I would like to see you stop making unwarranted,unjustified declarative sentences that serves as fodder for those who think your way of thinking is bizzare and illogical .

   

My opinion isn't gonna change based on anything "you" say. And I'm not concentrating on you being drunk and childish, but before you give advice to someone about the content of their post, I'd clean up your own house.

I would like to see you dispose of childish, petty, arguments and debate with maturity. Discuss with adults, as an adult.  

Hookbender — Oct 05, 2008[quote author=pickmaster60 link=1223041662/25#33 date=1223213365]I think Tripper's argument for a draw was flawed

If  you look at it taking in light of Hooks last post on the Palin is.... thread it makes more sense. It looked like he was making a response to Hook. Hook made the last post there and tripper made the first one here.

HAHAHA love the chart.






Along with Pick's post right above mine.


My post had no relevence to your illogical thinking. My post above your only said I liked her,but still continued to think as I had previously.

How do you make any connection?

pickmaster60 — Oct 05, 2008I'm not gonna assume why Tripper said what he did. I can only take him at his word. Our conclusion was the same,

But first don't you need clarification on what he did say? I'm not convinced your conclusions were the same. Why are you?

Take him at his word?
Isn't that like a bible thumper saying he's going to take the bible as God's word?
No reason to think about it or take into considerationany other information. No reason to look at context.

You don't need to assume why tripper said what he did. You need to know what he meant.

No, it's nothing like a bible thumper. And this is a perfect example of your lack of maturity and inability to discuss with adults. This is a opinion on a debate, not something to live your life by.

I'm just gonna stop responding to your post completely. Your over-analyzing everything I say in a ridiculous, absurd way.

Here is how the GOP guys think.
Michael Barone is a long time FOX guy.
Look at the first line in the paragraph.

"I thought Sarah Palin won—because she (far) exceeded expectations"

And "and spotlighted her winning personality. She showed the same smiling confidence that she did in her acceptance speech "

Obivuously he is impressed with her as well. Consider the source.


Notice any similarities in your thinking Butthead?



Sarah Palin Won the Debate Against Joe Biden
October 03, 2008 11:44 AM ET | Barone, Michael | Permanent Link
I thought Sarah Palin won—because she (far) exceeded expectations, because she showed considerable suppleness (countering Joe Biden's statement that the commanding general said that John McCain's surge strategy would not work in Afghanistan), and spotlighted her winning personality. She showed the same smiling confidence that she did in her acceptance speech September 3 and that was missing in her interview with Katie Couric. Biden's performance was by and large acceptable, but he made some significant misstatements, notably on the Constitution. Article I of the Constitution is not about the executive branch, as Biden said, but about the legislative branch, in which Biden has served for 35 years. And the vice president doesn't preside over the Senate just in cases of ties; he (or she) is entitled to preside over the Senate at any time. Imagine the uproar from Mainstream Media if Palin had made such errors! She does seem to be taking a little flak over her seemingly bizarre statement that she would seek more constitutional powers for the vice presidency. But, as you may remember, Lyndon Johnson, one of our most experienced vice presidents, sought to continue to attend Democratic Caucus meetings after he was elected vice president. He was hastily disinvited

     BUTT-HEAD SCRIPT:

                 Uuuuuuh, huh huh. Uuh,...
     
     Out the window, we see two YOUNG MEN carrying B&B's TV into their
     van.
     
     Still on the couch, Butt-Head looks over at the broken window. We
     see a CROWBAR lying on the floor, and the front door left open.
     
     Butt-Head looks at the BROKEN WINDOW, at the CROWBAR, the OPEN
     DOOR, then back at the EMPTY SPACE where the TV was. He does this
     a couple of times - piecing it all together.
     
                             BUTT-HEAD (CONT.)
                 Whoa! I think I just figured something
                 out Beavis.
     
                             BEAVIS
                 What?
     
                             BUTT-HEAD
                 This sucks.
     
                             BEAVIS
                 Yeah, heh heh.

Fox:

Andrea Tantaros
Republican Political Commentator

Lazarus in Lipstick

Palin won the debate because she exceeded expectations and connected with the American people on a personal level, but neither candidate crushed the other. I’m also not convinced either one reached out to sway the critical undecided voter.  Governor Palin breathed life into the McCain campaign and rectified public opinion about her competency, which was crucial. Republicans, heave a sigh of relief.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/columnists/story.html?id=a54510a2-f4c6-42cb-b72e-b49e3fcd80cd

Well, gosh darn it anyway. Geez, that there Sarah Palin sure can charm them Republicans. They're so gol-dang happy she didn't screw up Thursday night they actually think she won the debate against Joe Biden.

Trouble is, this ain't the Miss Alaska competition. Gee willikers, folks, this is a contest to see who's best suited to lead the U.S. in the event the president becomes incapacitated or dead. And Palin -- who prefaced one of her answers by saying "I've only been at this, what, five weeks" -- just doesn't have what it takes.

Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, did not implode in her TV debate with Democrat opponent Joe Biden. Instead she proved, after weeks of tutelage, she can perform just as well as any bright high school senior, which was good enough for the idealogues at Fox News to declare her the victor.

After the embarrassment of the Katie Couric interviews, Republicans were so relieved Palin was able to string her answers together in coherent sentences they've started to actually believe John McCain didn't make a colossal blunder in choosing her. Well, sort of.

The reviews on Redstates.com are surprisingly tepid. "I honestly don't think she did that bad," read one.

The spinners in the Grand Ol' Party, the ones who drink most deeply of the party Kool Aid, were more delirious, praising Palin for rediscovering her "inner barracuda." Declared Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan: "She killed. It was her evening. She was the star."

Many average, demoralized Republican supporters saw it differently. Their attack dog in designer glasses was more like a well-trained puppy. Said one Republican blogger from the Midwest: "She won on style, he won on substance."

Republican strategists were quick to paint Biden as the ultimate slick politician and Palin as the candidate of the people. They, and Palin, accused Biden of dwelling in the past by focusing on the record of George W. Bush and linking McCain to it.

These are the same people who look back decades to the the administrations of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter as the root of America's current economic mess. The hypocrisy is stunning.

In a strained attempt to misdirect blame for the current financial mess, they cite the Community Reinvestment Act -- a law passed in 1977 to eradicate discrimination in lending in poor neighbourhoods -- as the culprit. This is laughable. The CRA covered commercial banks and savings and loans institutions, not the loosely regulated non-bank mortgage companies that are largely responsible for the sub-prime mortgage mess. But, then, blaming poor blacks and immigrants has always been a favoured tactic of cold-hearted, fear-mongering U.S. conservative idealogues.

Expectations of Palin were so low all she had to do was show up and run out the clock without fumbling the ball. That she did, buying some time for McCain. He needed the U.S. Congress to pass a $700 billion economic rescue plan, which it did on Friday, to salvage his sputtering campaign. But the good news didn't last long for the Vietnam war hero.

Pick

You seem to be stuck on this illogical thinking, on my part thing. Was it illogical that I said if you look at facts Biden won?

Who do you think won the debate? Was there a clear winner? Not that you would give an honest answer at this point.

Are logical and reasonable points the single deciding factor in debates in general, VP and Presidential debates? Are there any exceptions where logic, facts presented correctly or incorrectly, are not necessarily going to guarantee a win?

If we agree that Biden was on his heels, in a defensive position, most of the time, I'm assuming we could agree that Palin was on the offensive position most of the time. Is that correct? If so, isn't that a winning position? Not a guarantee of a win, a winning position?

Does appearance and body language have an affect on the outcome at times during debates? Maybe even what the people debating are wearing?

Now you've claimed that my reason for calling a draw are illogical....I've said I'm not voting for McCain, I've said I like Biden from the time he was piked as VP, and you can verify this by checking other post, and I've also said I like the underdog, referring to Palin. If my only choice, as far as voting is concerned, is Obama, 3rd party, or not voting, do you think that because Palin showed up and didn't make a fool of herself would change that position on my part?

Obviously, the facts seem important enough from a logical standpoint, that if that were the only consideration on this debate, I would have given the win to Biden. So it seems that logically thinking, I had no problem. It's my opinion that Palin did well enough to call it a draw that you have a problem with, right?  It's the other factors that determine who wins in a debate that you have a problem with, correct?

Now, you came away with these opinions. She did pretty well, she has a great personalty, she's cute....

So your opinion of her was good, emotion based, possibly lust based, appearance based, correct? She didn't impress you with facts, you still think she is incompetent, but you came away with positive vibes of her anyway. We agreed that Biden was on his heals, did her debate style put him there? Was it her personality that put Biden on his heals? Or, was she simply in control of the debate?

Now if I say factually, Biden won the debate, Palin did better than expected so I give it a draw....anything positive I say about Palin is going to line up with Republicans view, right? Of course it will. Because they have a need to persuade the public that Palin won. They are trying to create the opinion that Palin won, even if she really didn't, so that they may gain votes. "Perception." In the debate, with Palin in control and doing better than expected, the perception was that Palin either did real well, or she won. Did she win, no. But she exceeded expectations and seemed in control of the debate. She had Biden on the defensive and the perception was created, based on that, that Palin either did real well, or won. Logically, factually, Biden won. So, there are more than one critieria for winning a debate, right? Isn't it possible to win or lose based on more than one criteria durring a debate?

Now I'm not saying Palin won. I have no need for Palin to win. I have no need for Biden to win. I have no needs at all. I have no dog in this hunt. I'm not voting republican this election. So, your trying to paint me as a republican, why? It's irreverent what the republicans say, and irreverent that we have close to the same opinion. With the exception that I don't think Palin won, I called it a draw. Not a win for Palin, a draw. It's coincident that the repubs gave a victory for Palin for pretty much the same reason I gave a draw to Palin. Nothing more.

"She did a little better than I thought she would on the debate."
"I just like her. She'a chipper. Great personality.

"Otherwise I think the same. "

It could also be said, "your" opinions of Palin line up with the republicans also. You came away from the debate with the same thoughts I did. You just still think Palin is incompetent. So, who won and why? Again, not that you would give an honest answer at this point.

pickmaster60 — Oct 05, 2008Tripper and I both called a draw.

I guess we would have to let tripper clear that up for you but I'll try.
It doesn't sound like he's saying that to me.
The whole post sounded negative for Palin.
Is he stating that himself or talking about others perception it was? I took it as the latter.
Let's look at it in context.

Overall, it's a draw, simply because information doesn't always beat presentation, especially when you're swimming in a sea of ignorance.

I think he's saying that when one is swimming in ignorance ,presentation sometimes beats out information.

Swimming in ignorance....those are the people who don't know the issues and don't think clearly.

He also said "That's not debate...that's just giving a speech in the middle of a debate"

How could it be a draw if he's not even considering her as debating?  

If information doesn't always beat out presentation ;that means information  does many times .
But sometimes people get so drawn into presentation that the they don't pay enough attention to what is actually being said.

Has anyone else called it a draw other than you? Perhaps you are one of those who didn't pay attention to content.

Pick's right - I didn't consider it a draw on a material basis, but politically-speaking, because everything is so stupidly polarized, I do. And sadly, it's because the dumb/ignorant/unrelentingly partisan are still up McCain-Palin's butt even after they've been caught telling ridiculous lies over and over again. They believe them, too, which is even sicker.

Overall, an apparent draw is a victory for Palin, since she was woefully unequipped to really debate on any sort of intellectual level.

I took his apparent as :
appearing as such but not necessarily so; "for all his apparent wealth he had no money to pay the rent"

I think that since she was "woefully unequiped for debate on any sort of intellectual level."

Doesn't sound like he thought it was a draw.
Right. Palin pulled a Bush, and didn't consider it necessary to answer the questions.

In fact he said "I knew that her bullshit would appeal to those who don't know the issues."

Did her bullshit appeal to you? One would think so,as you thought it was a draw and thought she handled herself very well.

No....it seems to me like you misunderstood.

By any measurable estimation, Biden won on substance.

Palin's pretty, though, so the "shiny object" factor made her appealing even though she said very little, and therefore, by the measure of modern American politics (which is a shameful endeavor), it was a draw.

Not an ACTUAL draw...just a draw by the standards of stupid that those in the media (and especially the right-wing type) have set.

Nothing she said made me change my opinion of her, except to the negative, and honestly, after her outright LIE today about Obama's relationship with Ayers (need we bring up McCain's ACTUAL pal, convicted mass thief Charles Keating?), people should RUN away from supporting her.

This is the McCain-Palin swiftboating...it's coming, and it's just as unsubstantiated. I just hope that those who support Obama (but not Obama himself) unleash hell on the GOP for their repeated lies. It's shameful and pathetic all rolled into one.

Tripper

charger — Oct 05, 2008I think Tripper's argument for a draw was flawed in that he did not present his terms.  In the terms I have highlighted above, I think he would agree with me that Joe Biden was not only the clear winner, but it wasn't even close.  If we are talking merely about expectations, Sarah Palin's incredibly low expectations made it easy for her to wink and smile her way past those.  But that is not winning the debate.

A very acute analysis, and completely correct. I should have framed what I was saying better. I don't want to stoke family infighting between Pick and Hook...though it seems that that's inevitable these days.  

I didn't believe it was actually a draw. I believed it would be viewed as one based on the standards of modern American politics and our media's focus on appearance rather than substance.

So to me, Biden clearly won in the actual DEBATE - he crushed her, because he was actually debating...

Like I said, she was just giving speeches while a debate was going on, rudely ignoring the questions and belaboring points made with inaccurate data and false assumptions (by and large).

Biden made some mistakes, but none on the level of Palin's - and he actually answered the questions. What a concept.

Biden would probably do a good job as VP or as President.

Palin's not even a good idea as VP.

That says something.
Tripper

"Pick's right - I didn't consider it a draw on a material basis, but politically-speaking, because everything is so stupidly polarized, I do. And sadly, it's because the dumb/ignorant/unrelentingly partisan are still up McCain-Palin's butt even after they've been caught telling ridiculous lies over and over again. They believe them, too, which is even sicker."

And I agree with this as well. This is worded much better, but I said pretty much the same thing, or intended it to be this way.

My flaw is not in the logic I used, it was in the wording of what I said.  

Jesse Jackson was asked about debate and he replied you just put it on dahook when you go fishin'.  ::)

Do you have anything to say? Any point you'd like to make, perhaps?