Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XberX_t-WvIJared wrote:I've seen some pretty bad Biden videos...but this may take the cake. Isn't this <b>really</b> concerning?
That was a GREAT line-er, word...matthewk wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XberX_t-WvIJared wrote:I've seen some pretty bad Biden videos...but this may take the cake. Isn't this <b>really</b> concerning?
It was hard to choose just one, but this one mentioned a few of his gaffes, before he gave that eloquent response.
That video is classic! Seriously good stuff. Palin should have just said "Yes" when Katie hit her that supreme court follow-up question instead of bumbling around.matthewk wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XberX_t-WvIJared wrote:I've seen some pretty bad Biden videos...but this may take the cake. Isn't this <b>really</b> concerning?
It was hard to choose just one, but this one mentioned a few of his gaffes, before he gave that eloquent response.
Jared wrote:Wow...the links come quickly, eh?
There is a gargantuan difference. There are gaffes, like mis-saying the number of states Obama said he'd been to (he said 57 when he meant 47). Anyone can make a verbal mistake, and I don't think it's fair to judge who will be President/Vice President based on verbal slips.
Then there are things that demonstrate your actual knowledge/positions on a subject. Palin is running for VP, with the possibility of her being President. Who signs laws, appoints Supreme Court justices, and should know the basics re: US law and history. Palin couldn't name any other Supreme Court decision that she's disagreed with. Even when asked <b>twice</b>. And she gave a rambling answer that didn't answer the question. There were a LOT of different answers that she could have EASILY given (I thought of Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson, she could have easily said Exxon Shipping v. Baker, etc).
So you're equating verbal gaffes with not knowing or understanding major Supreme Court decisions, something that is pretty important for someone who wants to be VP? Really??
Biden was presented with the same question. It was part of a series, where Couric asked the same questions to both Palin and Biden. They also did the same thing with Obama and McCain.Teal wrote:When has Obama ever faced one of these quizzes? Never. When has Biden? Never.
Couric: Are there Supreme Court decisions you disagree with?
Biden: You know, I'm the guy who wrote the Violence Against Women Act. And I said that every woman in America, if they are beaten and abused by a man, should be able to take that person to court - meaning you should be able to go to federal court and sue in federal court the man who abused you if you can prove that abuse. But they said, "No, that a woman, there's no federal jurisdiction." And I held, they acknowledged, I held about 1,000 hours of hearings proving that there's an effect in interstate commerce.
Women who are abused and beaten and beaten are women who are not able to be in the work force. And the Supreme Court said, "Well, there is an impact on commerce, but this is federalizing a private crime and we're not going to allow it." I think the Supreme Court was wrong about that decision.
Okay. I stand corrected...on this one...Jared wrote:Biden was presented with the same question. It was part of a series, where Couric asked the same questions to both Palin and Biden. They also did the same thing with Obama and McCain.Teal wrote:When has Obama ever faced one of these quizzes? Never. When has Biden? Never.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/ ... 3062.shtml
Couric: Are there Supreme Court decisions you disagree with?
Biden: You know, I'm the guy who wrote the Violence Against Women Act. And I said that every woman in America, if they are beaten and abused by a man, should be able to take that person to court - meaning you should be able to go to federal court and sue in federal court the man who abused you if you can prove that abuse. But they said, "No, that a woman, there's no federal jurisdiction." And I held, they acknowledged, I held about 1,000 hours of hearings proving that there's an effect in interstate commerce.
Women who are abused and beaten and beaten are women who are not able to be in the work force. And the Supreme Court said, "Well, there is an impact on commerce, but this is federalizing a private crime and we're not going to allow it." I think the Supreme Court was wrong about that decision.
Now let's hope that the Republicans come to the same conclusion about Palin as the VPTeal wrote:Okay. I stand corrected...on this one...Jared wrote:Biden was presented with the same question. It was part of a series, where Couric asked the same questions to both Palin and Biden. They also did the same thing with Obama and McCain.Teal wrote:When has Obama ever faced one of these quizzes? Never. When has Biden? Never.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/ ... 3062.shtml
Couric: Are there Supreme Court decisions you disagree with?
Biden: You know, I'm the guy who wrote the Violence Against Women Act. And I said that every woman in America, if they are beaten and abused by a man, should be able to take that person to court - meaning you should be able to go to federal court and sue in federal court the man who abused you if you can prove that abuse. But they said, "No, that a woman, there's no federal jurisdiction." And I held, they acknowledged, I held about 1,000 hours of hearings proving that there's an effect in interstate commerce.
Women who are abused and beaten and beaten are women who are not able to be in the work force. And the Supreme Court said, "Well, there is an impact on commerce, but this is federalizing a private crime and we're not going to allow it." I think the Supreme Court was wrong about that decision.
macsomjrr wrote:Now let's hope that the Republicans come to the same conclusion about Palin as the VPTeal wrote:Okay. I stand corrected...on this one...Jared wrote: Biden was presented with the same question. It was part of a series, where Couric asked the same questions to both Palin and Biden. They also did the same thing with Obama and McCain.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/ ... 3062.shtml
*ducks flying rock from Teal*
[/url]Yeah, really. How can she survive the bullshit of Washington without being a good bullshitter?FatPitcher wrote:Palin is a truly poor BS-er. Which should disqualify her from most jobs in politics.
I can't, in good conscience, vote for someone who can't pull credible-sounding s*** out of their ass on a moment's notice.
Still, you gotta admit it's pretty disturbing how many blanks Palin has been drawing on issues of national politics. Some of it can be understood because Alaska is a kind of country unto itself, but you'd expect that someone with national aspirations would have spent more time learning this stuff on their own time over the years.Teal wrote:Yeah, really. How can she survive the bullshit of Washington without being a good bullshitter?FatPitcher wrote:Palin is a truly poor BS-er. Which should disqualify her from most jobs in politics.
I can't, in good conscience, vote for someone who can't pull credible-sounding s*** out of their ass on a moment's notice.
Pelosi says, “Democrats are committed to reforming the way Washington does business.” Pelosi was the one who said the democrats "were going to drain the swamp" and get rid of Washington corruption.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed nearly $100,000 from her political action committee to her husband's real estate and investment firm over the past decade, a practice of paying a spouse with political donations that she supported banning last year.
Financial Leasing Services Inc. (FLS), owned by Paul F. Pelosi, has received $99,000 in rent, utilities and accounting fees from the speaker's "PAC to the Future" over the PAC's nine-year history.
The payments have quadrupled since Mr. Pelosi took over as treasurer of his wife's committee in 2007, Federal Election Commission records show. FLS is on track to take in $48,000 in payments this year alone - eight times as much as it received annually from 2000 to 2005, when the committee was run by another treasurer.
Lawmakers’ frequent use of campaign donations to pay relatives emerged as an issue in the 2006 election campaigns, when the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal gave Democrats fodder to criticize Republicans such as former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and Rep. John T. Doolittle of California for putting their wives on their campaign and PAC payrolls for fundraising work.
So being able to say a single negative Supreme court case is the same as pulling something out of their ass? Understanding basic Supreme Court history isn't an important thing to be VP? I'd understand a gotcha question being, "Who is the President of Mozambique?" But foundational issues in law?FatPitcher wrote:Palin is a truly poor BS-er. Which should disqualify her from most jobs in politics.
I can't, in good conscience, vote for someone who can't pull credible-sounding s*** out of their ass on a moment's notice.
The VP nominee matters, but it has nothing to do with Biden and Palin. It matters because the last two VP's, Gore and Cheney, have played a much larger role in their respective administrations than their predecessors.Teal wrote:Y'know what amazes me? I'm amazed that, ALL THE SUDDEN, the vice presidential nominee matters. You know why I think that is? Whatever gets the focus off of Obama, keeps anyone from doing, I dunno, 'real' investigative journalism about his past, his dealings, his record.
I really do wonder why McCain picked this lady in the first place, other than the fact that she looks good in a skirt. Hopefully she changes my mind in tonight's debate.Jared wrote:So being able to say a single negative Supreme court case is the same as pulling something out of their ass? Understanding basic Supreme Court history isn't an important thing to be VP? I'd understand a gotcha question being, "Who is the President of Mozambique?" But foundational issues in law?FatPitcher wrote:Palin is a truly poor BS-er. Which should disqualify her from most jobs in politics.
I can't, in good conscience, vote for someone who can't pull credible-sounding s*** out of their ass on a moment's notice.
(And she also, said there's a constitutional right to privacy, which is the foundation of Roe v Wade, and something that most conservatives would disagree with.)
Watching her filibuster while desperately searching for answers is horrifically painful. Ultimately, I think the campaign made a mistake in hiding her away, and she's making a mistake by not simply admitting her ignorance on some matters. I think a rather sizable chunk of folks who were energized by Palin's simply being on the ticket are not going to care that she couldn't name supreme court cases or didn't know what the 'Bush Doctrine' was. But for right leaning voters who DO care, all this manipulation and obfuscation brings about possibly more distrust and misgivings than a few 'I don't knows' would have.FatPitcher wrote:Still, you gotta admit it's pretty disturbing how many blanks Palin has been drawing on issues of national politics. Some of it can be understood because Alaska is a kind of country unto itself, but you'd expect that someone with national aspirations would have spent more time learning this stuff on their own time over the years.Teal wrote:Yeah, really. How can she survive the bullshit of Washington without being a good bullshitter?FatPitcher wrote:Palin is a truly poor BS-er. Which should disqualify her from most jobs in politics.
I can't, in good conscience, vote for someone who can't pull credible-sounding s*** out of their ass on a moment's notice.
Kinda lends some credence to the "working mom" argument against her - between being governor and taking care of the kids, there's probably not been a lot of time left to keep up with national politics. I'll take the debate as an indicator of whether she's capable of learning quickly enough when it's required.
