VP Debate:

[HashiriyaS14]

They both did well, neither one had any MAJOR gaffes, both seemed at least reasonably well informed.

There were a couple of instances wherein Biden's depth of knowledge versus Palin was apparent, but in general they seemed like they could both speak on the subjects in question well enough.

I don't think it'll have a meaningful impact on the polls either way.

[Eikon]

I don't think it'll have a meaningful impact on the polls either way.

I totally agree with you. Those who liked Biden, will like him more afterwards. Those who like Palin will like her more afterwards. Same goes for dislikes.

I do think a small amount (maybe 1/2 of 1%) of undecided voters may swing Rep. afterwards. I think there is a group out there that was leaning that direction, but refused to admit it until they had seen Palin in action.

The end result is that it was all about Sarah Palin, and to that extent, she was the winner, regardless of the dual recitations of policy positions and talking points.

I agree completely with this statement as well. I think the eyes of the nation were on Palin as she was the newcomer. We all knew Biden and had seen him before. Palin on the otherhand was the draw... how would she do??? She did fine. I don't think she outwitted or out-debated Biden... he got the best of her by a split decision on the boxing scorecard analogy.. but She had WAY more to gain or lose and her solid performance in light of that made the whole event a bigger win for her than for Biden.

[AZhitman]

They both did well, neither one had any MAJOR gaffes, both seemed at least reasonably well informed.

There were a couple of instances wherein Biden's depth of knowledge versus Palin was apparent, but in general they seemed like they could both speak on the subjects in question well enough.

I don't think it'll have a meaningful impact on the polls either way.

Yep. Agreed 100%.

[barrigas14]

2) He stated the ice cap is melting in his rant about MMGW and that is incorrect

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci...1.stm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...5.htm

http://www.worldviewofglobalwa....html

http://www.canada.com/vancouve...68f3d

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...0.htm

A couple you have to take with a grain of salt, but they do show pictures of previous years and current years. Also there was a report that stated that the estimated melts were less than what was predicted but it was still shown to be melting. Tried to find that but I am at work...and can only procrastinate for so long.

3) 10+ years for getting "new oil" which is incorrect. We are looking at 1-2 years in some areas.

Depends on what sort of oil you are talking about. America has about 11 years worth of crude that can be easily attained. Unlike the Saudi's which have 81 years of attianable sources and hell Canada (which shocked me) has 100+ years. But Canada resources are smaller and they produce less overall so, producing less = longer sustainability.

Now when looking at all types of oil, conventional (the drill and it comes up easily) oil and un-conventional oil, it is estimate that North America has huge resources. BUT the problem is that many of those un-conventional oil resources cost more to extract and then need further production to make into the oil we use daily. So it could take many more years to get and cost more in the long run.

5) He stated both Bush and Obama voted the same on the bill increasing taxes on individuals making over $42k/yr and that is incorrect. The bill went nowhere anyway but I guess that's not the point.

The dubious count includes repetitive votes as well as votes to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them on the rich. An analysis by factcheck.org found that 23 of the votes were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all, seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, 11 would have increased taxes on only those making more than $1 million a year.

Not sure if this is the same one you mentioned.

6) Obama did say he would meet directly with Ahmedinijad. Biden should have gotten that right as he attacked Obama for the statement

This is my own opinion, I still don't know why it is seen as a bad thing to sit down and talk with these people. Obviously the current tactics aren't working and have proven to never have worked (i.e. Cuba, Iraq before war, Korea, etc.). The biggest threat to a dictator ship is information getting to it's people. The government tries to control everything so when it starts to lose it, it could lead to revolution, whether that is good or bad, depends on who fills the vacuum. Syria is having issues with communication and information getting to it's public. They, up until a few years ago, didn't even allow cell phones. There was an interesting show I watched about video games no less that talked about how those are effecting Syria.

8) Stated McCain will raise taxes on healthcare when in fact McCain gives a tax credit to offset any increases

BIDEN: Warned that Republican presidential candidate John McCain's $5,000 tax credit to help families buy health coverage "will go straight to the insurance company."

THE FACTS: Of course it would, because it's meant to pay for insurance. That was like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer.

9) Alaska is NOT getting windfall profits from the oil companies

PALIN: Claimed she has taken on the oil industry as Alaska governor.

THE FACTS: Palin pushed to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and distributed the proceeds to the state's citizens to offset rising energy costs. However, she has also sided with the industry on a number of issues. She sued the Interior Department over its designation of polar bears as an endangered species. That puts her on the same side as the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's chief trade association. She also supports the industry's desire to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - a position at odds with McCain.

11) He stated McCain weakened regulation of financial institutes when we all know McCain helped bring the issue to light and called for more regulation

PALIN: "Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell."

THE FACTS: Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska led an effort in 2005 to tighten regulation on the mortgage underwriters - McCain joined as a co-sponsor a year later. The legislation was never taken up by the full Senate, then under Republican control.*************************************************

Other stuff:

PALIN: Said the United States has reduced its troop level in Iraq to a number below where it was when the troop increase began in early 2007.

THE FACTS: Not correct. The Pentagon says there are currently 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about 17,000 more than there were before the 2007 military buildup began.

BIDEN: Complained about "economic policies of the last eight years" that led to "excessive deregulation."

THE FACTS: Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis today. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now. The law was widely backed by Republicans as well as by Democratic President Clinton, who argues it has stopped the crisis today from being worse.

BIDEN: Said McCain supports tax breaks for oil companies, and "wants to give them another $4 billion tax cut.".

THE FACTS: Biden is repeating a favorite saw of the Obama campaign, and it's misleading. McCain supports a cut in income taxes for all corporations, and doesn't single out any one industry for that benefit.

[smockers83]

BIDEN: Said McCain supports tax breaks for oil companies, and "wants to give them another $4 billion tax cut.".

THE FACTS: Biden is repeating a favorite saw of the Obama campaign, and it's misleading. McCain supports a cut in income taxes for all corporations, and doesn't single out any one industry for that benefit.

Which is why I have a major issue with Biden and everyone else that plays this card. Its a victimization tactic and shows that he obviously doesn't understand what's going on out there. I went and saw T. Boone Pickens two nights ago and he hit on the money--most people have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the oil industry.

People are upset that gas prices are high so that's where this victimization comes in. Oil companies made an honest profit. Why did they make record nominal profits? Because they have bought more oil than they have ever before and the demand for oil has never been greater. When the world produces 85 million barrels per day and demand rises, prices go up. If someone can't understand that, then they aren't fit to lead. What if gas prices were like TVs. If the same market conditions were in place of TVs like gas and oil, would we be complaining like we are now? Most probably not, we'd probably just say, "Well, I can't get a new TV yet. I'll just have to wait until the price falls or it goes on sale." We can't get upset at people who make a lot of money because we gave them that money to begin with. When prices kept going up to $4/gallon, we said we'll try and deal with it so demand didn't really change. Then some of us got fed up with it and decided to not drive as much, reducing demand, therefore the price started to fall. Now, if a rise in demand deems the profit made as a windfall profit, we might as well start charging Apple, Sony, Microsoft, IBM, Google, and every other company that makes a profit due to a demand for their products. There are insurance companies out there that make billions of dollars, too, why aren't we all up in their faces about it as well?

[audtatious]

A couple you have to take with a grain of salt, but they do show pictures of previous years and current years. Also there was a report that stated that the estimated melts were less than what was predicted but it was still shown to be melting. Tried to find that but I am at work...and can only procrastinate for so long.

Nope, no need. I retract my statement as I'm incorrect. Up until this winter the ice cap over the last 20 years has been shrinking. Not only has ours been shrinking but so has the one on Mars. This year, as we enter a cooling phase due to lack of sun activity, it should stop and start growing again. That's at least that's what I expect to see.

Depends on what sort of oil you are talking about. America has about 11 years worth of crude that can be easily attained. Unlike the Saudi's which have 81 years of attianable sources and hell Canada (which shocked me) has 100+ years. But Canada resources are smaller and they produce less overall so, producing less = longer sustainability.

Now when looking at all types of oil, conventional (the drill and it comes up easily) oil and un-conventional oil, it is estimate that North America has huge resources. BUT the problem is that many of those un-conventional oil resources cost more to extract and then need further production to make into the oil we use daily. So it could take many more years to get and cost more in the long run.

My point is that we have areas where we can start pumping within 1-2 years. Others will take longer. When this came up before everyone threw up their arms and stated "It'll take 10 years", if we had started then we would not be in the situation we are in today and the same people are saying "It'll take 10 years" again. We also have estimated 800 billion barrels of oil in oil shale and new ways of getting the oil out of the shale as well. With the cost of oil over $100 then it IS viable and cheaper than what we are paying now.

The dubious count includes repetitive votes as well as votes to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them on the rich. An analysis by factcheck.org found that 23 of the votes were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all, seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, 11 would have increased taxes on only those making more than $1 million a year.

Not sure if this is the same one you mentioned.

"A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway." - factcheck

As I stated, it was for individuals making $42k or more a year and it never went anywhere. From what I can tell he did vote for it at some point, regardless of whether it was part of a greater bill or not.

This is my own opinion, I still don't know why it is seen as a bad thing to sit down and talk with these people. Obviously the current tactics aren't working and have proven to never have worked (i.e. Cuba, Iraq before war, Korea, etc.). The biggest threat to a dictator ship is information getting to it's people. The government tries to control everything so when it starts to lose it, it could lead to revolution, whether that is good or bad, depends on who fills the vacuum. Syria is having issues with communication and information getting to it's public. They, up until a few years ago, didn't even allow cell phones. There was an interesting show I watched about video games no less that talked about how those are effecting Syria.

If you sit down with these people in person it means you acknowledge they have something over you. This gives them more power. If you refuse to sit down with them until they make a "sentiment of peace" then you have something to work with (UN restrictions until they decide to work with "us/whomever". This is similar to what I remember of NK wanting direct talks with the US instead of the 6-nation talks (or whatever). We refused and they finally relented and we were able to make some initial progress.

BIDEN: Warned that Republican presidential candidate John McCain's $5,000 tax credit to help families buy health coverage "will go straight to the insurance company."

THE FACTS: Of course it would, because it's meant to pay for insurance. That was like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer.

That is correct. Instead of the Gov paying it for you and managing it, McCains plan lets business handle it. This is far cheaper than having the Gov manage it for you and based on how bad the Gov screws stuff up it's probably better for everyone as a whole.

PALIN: Claimed she has taken on the oil industry as Alaska governor.

THE FACTS: Palin pushed to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and distributed the proceeds to the state's citizens to offset rising energy costs. However, she has also sided with the industry on a number of issues. She sued the Interior Department over its designation of polar bears as an endangered species. That puts her on the same side as the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's chief trade association. She also supports the industry's desire to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - a position at odds with McCain.

I've already addressed this above. I think McCain is wrong concerning ANWAR as well. As far as polar bears are concerned I've addressed that in the Global Warming thread.

PALIN: "Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell."

THE FACTS: Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska led an effort in 2005 to tighten regulation on the mortgage underwriters - McCain joined as a co-sponsor a year later. The legislation was never taken up by the full Senate, then under Republican control.

And Bush wanted something done about it in 2003. McCain was late to the party but at least he was there. Look at the video I posted in another thread showing the Republicans arguing with the Dems about this very subject in 2004. Reps wanted more regulation while the Dems constantly stated there were no issues. No, I don't think McCain was involved in that debate as I have not looked into that aspect.

Other stuff:

PALIN: Said the United States has reduced its troop level in Iraq to a number below where it was when the troop increase began in early 2007.

THE FACTS: Not correct. The Pentagon says there are currently 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about 17,000 more than there were before the 2007 military buildup began.

BIDEN: Complained about "economic policies of the last eight years" that led to "excessive deregulation."

THE FACTS: Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis today. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now. The law was widely backed by Republicans as well as by Democratic President Clinton, who argues it has stopped the crisis today from being worse.

BIDEN: Said McCain supports tax breaks for oil companies, and "wants to give them another $4 billion tax cut.".

THE FACTS: Biden is repeating a favorite saw of the Obama campaign, and it's misleading. McCain supports a cut in income taxes for all corporations, and doesn't single out any one industry for that benefit.

Troop status I mentioned already. I stated 3000 as that is what Colms had stated on TV. The other stuff I had seen as well but did not post.

[96Qowner]

The dubious count includes repetitive votes as well as votes to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them on the rich. An analysis by factcheck.org found that 23 of the votes were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all, seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, 11 would have increased taxes on only those making more than $1 million a year.

Yeah, I saw that same count in the morning paper. So I guess he only voted 64 times for tax increases, not 94. Swell. I feel so much better about Obama not saddling our economy with increases in tax rates.

The bottom 50% of income earners currently pay 3% of the taxes. The top 5% currently pay 60%.

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Those top 5% employ people and invest. It's downright stupid to add even more to their tax burden. If I need a job, I go to the rich guy, not the poor guy. If I have something I want to sell, I go to the rich guy, not the poor guy.

[audtatious]

<gasp>

You mean poor people don't create jobs?

Get da Hell outta hea!

[APEXi240]

14) He said that 100 million families would be affected by McCain's Medical plan. There are not 100 million families in the USA.

He actually stated there were 100 million households. Which is close to the current estimates of over 111 million households.

http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf

Whether or not they would all be affected by McCain's medical plan, I do not know, although I highly doubt it.

[barrigas14]

Yeah I was just posting some more information to elaborate on some subjects.

With the whole sit down, I don't think if you sit down with someone you are accepting their side or legitimizing them.

People have different policies and view points. To me, it's like saying, if I sat down with a KKK member I am legitimizing him. I am not legitimizing his actions or view points but if I needed to work with him to head off something I definitely would do so. The relationship would be rough don't get me wrong, but at least there would be some sort of dialogue there.

To me, the whole idea of trying to impose sanctions on a dictatorship does nothing but help their cause.

[szh]

According to this report, Palin has improved her position with women (who watched the debate) ... both Republicans and Democrats. Good!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27009491/

Z

[ishkabibble]

As for zingers... Biden failed miserably in my opinion on his "bridge to nowhere" comment. That is such a misunderstood issue. She killed the damn thing. If anything it's a feather in her cap rather than -1 for her. Why he chose to use that one-liner I have no clue.

I thought it was one of the highlights of the debate. She was for the "bridge to nowhere" before it generated so much public negativity. She continues to lie about her opposing it to this day despite being called out on her BS by nearly everyone.

If I'm misunderstanding the issue, please clarify it for me.

[AZhitman]

If I'm misunderstanding the issue, please clarify it for me.

Pretty much.

The "zinger" failed because both BO and JB voted FOR it.

[ishkabibble]

Pretty much.

The "zinger" failed because both BO and JB voted FOR it.

That wasn't Seth's point, and those two aren't the ones out there telling the lie that they "said thanks, but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere".

[AZhitman]

No, they're just hacking her while concealing the fact that they're ALL guilty.

How convenient.

I'd use the pot / kettle analogy, but someone's bound to scream "racism".

[ishkabibble]

No, they're just hacking her while concealing the fact that they're ALL guilty.

How convenient.

I'd use the pot / kettle analogy, but someone's bound to scream "racism".

Off-topic deflection. Let's get back to proving me wrong and Seth right. If you can.

[AZhitman]

No need.

I said it above: They're ALL guilty of dishonesty.

She DID say, "Thanks but no thanks", but that's not the whole story, as it was already efectively a dead project.

[ishkabibble]

ROFL. More like the rest of the country said "no thanks", and she said, "ok, I'm no longer going to ask for this earmark so I can save my political hiney, but I'll still take that money and still build the road to the bridge to nowhere".

[AZhitman]

Fair enough.

So that makes one, to Oblahma's how many?

[audtatious]

IMO, why would she not have supported it? She was only a Mayor at the time and any time the state can get funds from "mother fed" I'm sure that was OK with all of them. It's not like they have the responsibility as Governor nor a Representative.

There is more to the bridge itself than connecting "an island with 50 people". The island itself has a ferry system that runs every 30 minutes during normal time frames and every 15 minutes between May and September. Blah Blah Blah. IMO, not enough for "me" to pay for it but I understand why they would be for the bridge itself. Additionally, it was to help aid growth in the area by linking the airport to the cruise port in Ketchikan which hosts over 2 million visitors a year.

Now, Federal funding for the bridge (the earmark) was stripped on November 16, 2005, before she was Governor. During her campaign in September 2006, Palin was for it being built. Realize, this would have been built via state funds and not federal funds at the time (or state funds with any Fed funds they could get). During her inaugural address on December 4, 2006, she pledged responsible spending and on January 17, 2007 she rescinded the budgeting for the bridge (and the other bridge that was included in the funding the whole time) in order to keep the states budget in tact. In August 2007 the state DOT stated they were leaning towards an upgraded ferry system and in Sept '07 she formally canceled the project.

Until she was fully involved with the state budget she was for it. That's a fact. Once responsible for ensuring Alaska met their budget limitations she did the right thing and pulled it. I really see no problem with this.

[ishkabibble]

The problem is, despite all you say above, her claim which is one of the centerpieces of her VP campaign is a load of crap.

She was for the earmark, it was stripped - the decision was made for her (not by her), then she was "against it". Simple as that, and contrary to her rhetoric.

Do I think the bridge should have been built? I don't know, I'd have to live in that area or see some impartial statistics to give you an answer. It just really bothers me that she keeps repeating this lie after she's been called out on it.

Greg, Obama had a ton of earmarks. He doesn't get a pass, but at least he owned up to it when called out.

[audtatious]

She supported something before being Gov then scrapped it when she took office. She lied. Happy now?

It was pulled from being a federal earmark under Stevens. This crap isn't even worth arguing about.

[ishkabibble]

Not worth arguing about? I remember that tactic for all of your attacks against the left.

If she didn't keep repeating the lie every time she makes a stump speech, and Seth didn't make a false claim about it, it wouldn't be worth arguing about.

[AZhitman]

Even if she says it a hundred more times, it still pales in comparison to the misleading nonsense that gushes from BO's hyperactive jabberbox.

p.s. She ain't runnin' for President.

[audtatious]

Not worth arguing about? I remember that tactic for all of your attacks against the left.

If she didn't keep repeating the lie every time she makes a stump speech, and Seth didn't make a false claim about it, it wouldn't be worth arguing about.

She was for it before she was against it, sounds like she has learned a standard Dem war cry to me. She killed it so technically she was against it in the end if you want to split hairs about it.

[Eikon]

Not worth arguing about? I remember that tactic for all of your attacks against the left.

If she didn't keep repeating the lie every time she makes a stump speech, and Seth didn't make a false claim about it, it wouldn't be worth arguing about.

I didn't make a false claim. I claimed that Biden was retarded for zinging her on the bridge to nowhere topic.

It's a fact for more than one reason. I didn't even think about Greg's point of view... but here is mine:

She killed the bridge project. She, unlike every other politician in the world gave back funds that were already earmarked for her state and that project. She knew the responsible thing was to balance the state budget and that bridge was not going to allow that, so she killed it.

For that reason, she can make the claim that killing the bridge to nowhere was a very positive action and showed great leadership.

This is why it's so freaking stupid for the Dems to call her out on the "bridge to nowhere" project as though it was a mistake on her part.

I see only positive reflections on her from that entire issue. So Biden "zinging" her on that remark was retarded.

It's like calling Greg a lazy, retarded, slacker because NICO is the biggest Nissan/Infiniti site on the 'net. It makes no sense to insult a positive action or attribute.

It would be like me saying, "Ish.. you SUCK because you built a really hot convertible!" what?? That doesn't make any sense. How about a compliment instead. If I made that insult it would make ME look stupid, not you. Hence my point about Biden's insult during the debate.

Now, I might say that about you chosing to sell that 'vert for an NX.. but that's another topic.

[Bubba1]

I agree with Hash. I don't see this debate having any impact at all.

Expectations were incredibly low on both sides. Neither embarassed themselves. I believe those of each party will think their candidate won. I' think Biden won mainly because he addressed the moderators questions more than Palin did. Ignoring the moderator and going off on your own subject kinda defeats the purpose of a debate IMHO.

Had the moderator been more competent and steered Palin back to the questions, I suspect she would have fared worse.

[AZhitman]

If you REALLY want to break it down, she at least went on record as NOT supporting it.

Keep in mind that BO and JB have to stand by their vote of approval - They've still not gone on record (i.e. a vote) as opposing it.

[Bubba1]

If you REALLY want to break it down, she at least went on record as NOT supporting it.

Keep in mind that BO and JB have to stand by their vote of approval - They've still not gone on record (i.e. a vote) as opposing it.

From what I read, Palin was very much for it, but withdrew her support when it became clear it wasn't going to get approved and became politically inappropriate. So to say that she was on record as NOT supporting it is not entirely true.

Dig deep enough and you'll see both sides guilty of spin.

[ishkabibble]

She killed the bridge project. She, unlike every other politician in the world gave back funds that were already earmarked for her state and that project.

Nope. Alaska still got the money for the bridge projects, just not earmarked specifically for the bridge. She didn't give back funds, and even built "the road to the bridge to nowhere". Yes, they spent millions to build a road leading to a dead end.

She has no business making claims about the bridge to nowhere. McCain does, though.

Now, I might say that about you chosing to sell that 'vert for an NX.. but that's another topic.

I was tired of sliding around in the snow and driving with groceries on my lap.