Next time you at a doctor, dentist, ect ask them what the Dems healthcare plan will do to the care you recieve. Not to say Mc's is something to write home about.
why don't you tell us...?
I'm not planning on seeing my doctor anytime soon (knock on wood)....
Going back to a point I was making last night ... here's another example of Joe Biden's pathological lying.
He mentioned recently having a meal at "Katie's Restaurant" on "Union Street" in Wilimington, Delaware ... where patrons allegedly spilled their guts about all the things the Republicans have done to them.
Problem is, Katie's Restaurant has been closed for years ...
Going back to a point I was making last night ... here's another example of Joe Biden's pathological lying.
He mentioned recently having a meal at "Katie's Restaurant" on "Union Street" in Wilimington, Delaware ... where patrons allegedly spilled their guts about all the things the Republicans have done to them.
Problem is, Katie's Restaurant has been closed for years ...
holy fn shit...sweet jesus help us....this is absolutely terrible...
The fact that it seems relatively minor almost makes it worse to me. Why make that up?
If he can't be truthful about ANYTHING, how can you believe anything that comes out of his mouth?
More examples of Biden's "fun with facts" from last night:
THE CONSTITUTION: Biden: "Vice President Cheney's been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. He has — he has — the idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the executive — he works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."
Article 1 of the Constitution does not, in fact, define the role of the Vice President of the United States. It defines the role of the legislative branch, otherwise known as the branch in which Joe Biden has served for the last 36 years.
IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN SPENDING: Biden said that the U.S. spends more in Iraq in one month than it has in Afghanistan in six or seven years.
That figure is off by 2000 percent.
‘KICKED HEZBOLLAH OUT OF LEBANON’: Biden: When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said, and Barack said, ‘Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.”
Reuters thinks he meant to refer to Syria, but I still don't think it would be accurate to say the U.S. kicked Syria out of Lebanon. The Lebanese kicked Syria out of Lebanon.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT: Biden's statement that McCain voted against the Violence Against Women Act is accurate. But as Robert Byers notes, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Morrison, the Court ruled that much of Biden's law was an unconstitutional power grab by Congress of rights reserved to the states. Nobody voted against the WAWA because they support violence against women; they objected over constiutional concerns that a Supreme Court majority validated.
The conventional wisdom seems to be Biden was "better on substance." Well, it's easy to be good on substance when you're allowed to basically just make shit up.
I could win a debate on astrophysics, so long as it didn't matter if I was, you know, accurate.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
So, neither side is for: gay marriage, universal health care, abolishing NCLB, and forging ahead w/ renewable energy research (backburner issue for Biden, he kept talking about "clean" coal, which is not clean by any means!). Key issues with me anyway. Looks like even though it's VERY necessary to get the republicans out of the White House, it looks like business as usual. :(
However, if there is one important comment made last night and should sway any voter it's this one made by Palin... that the job of VP should have more power. That statement alone, should alert every single voter in this country as to exactly what she wants in this job!!!
Going back to a point I was making last night ... here's another example of Joe Biden's pathological lying.
He mentioned recently having a meal at "Katie's Restaurant" on "Union Street" in Wilimington, Delaware ... where patrons allegedly spilled their guts about all the things the Republicans have done to them.
Problem is, Katie's Restaurant has been closed for years ...
He also likes to be a dishonest shmuck about things like 9/11. Mr. "It's Classified" ... what a cock.
Not that i expect him to answer any of the questions, and blow the lid ...
but the self-richeous smug look on his face makes me want to slap the everloving shit out of him.
What a fuck hole.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Do you think you have a responsibility as president to help stop the genocide in Darfur.
Uhh... did you watch the debate, or do you just constantly love to trash it? Joe Biden last night:
"I don't have the stomach for genocide when it comes to Darfur. We can now impose a no-fly zone. It's within our capacity. We can lead NATO if we're willing to take a hard stand. We can, I've been in those camps in Chad. I've seen the suffering, thousands and tens of thousands have died and are dying. We should rally the world to act and demonstrate it by our own movement to provide the helicopters to get the 21,000 forces of the African Union in there now to stop this genocide."
It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
More examples of Biden's "fun with facts" from last night:
THE CONSTITUTION: Biden: "Vice President Cheney's been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. He has — he has — the idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the executive — he works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."
Article 1 of the Constitution does not, in fact, define the role of the Vice President of the United States. It defines the role of the legislative branch, otherwise known as the branch in which Joe Biden has served for the last 36 years.
Um.
I have to give Biden this one.
His attempt to use Article 1 was a sort of Reverse Logic scenario.
He was saying that since Article 1 defines the VPs role in the senate in a very LIMITED scope, it is clear the intention.
He was doing a soundbite rundown of the constitution, and admittedly he seemed to forget what Artilcle I was actually titled.
However if you need proof the VP is part of the executive branch,
all you have to do is look to ARTICLE II: THE EXECUTIVE
The President The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
and then the VPs executive status is further deliniated in Article II, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
THE VP is CLEARLY described UNDER ARTICLE II -- THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AS BEING "A CIVIL OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES". The Supreme Court has even ruled that members of the House and Senate are NOT Civil Officers of the United States, so there you go.
I'm not trying to defend Biden, just pointing out that what he said about the constitutions explicit delination of the VPs branch affiliation is correct, regardless of Biden's possible ignorance of the actual articles involved.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I will just repost what I stated in the other thread.
I think she did pretty good. I don't think the expectations for either candidate where extremely high. They basically just had to go into the debate and not loose it for their tickets. She definitely performed a lot better last night than she did in her interviews with Gibson and Couric. She dodged a few questions, but so did Biden, that she probably couldn't answer without sounding bad. Biden definitely did far better when it came to foreign policy, that is his strong suit, but he didn't mop the floor with her. While he definitely elaborated more, she stuck to talking points but from what I have heard she played her strongest asset and that is coming across as your average person and being able to connect with the public. All in all they both did better than expected. Neither performance won over large masses of independent voters but I don't believe that that was their aim. Their aim was not to screw up and just secure the base, especially for Palin, that they where the right choice for their party.
On a side note, as a neutral observer, the one area that really stuck out to me was the question on a VP's role. I was a little unsettled by Palin's insinuation that a VP's role is not strictly regulated to the Executive branch. It is clearly stated, in my opinion, in the Constitution that a VP duties lay firmly in the Executive Branch and not in some limbo realm in between the Legislative and Executive. Her answer came off a bit to Dick Cheney for my liking. As for Biden I was a disappointed that when his disagreements and criticism of Obama in the past was sort of brushed aside by him. I would have preferred that he just stated that yes him and Senator Obama have disagreed in the past and will probably disagree in the future. Honesty would have been a better policy that just beating around the bush.
I would also like to add the Gwen Ifill did a good job last night. All the excitement of her being unbaised where definitely unwarrented. She was able to but her personal beliefs aside and handled her job professionally.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
On a side note, as a neutral observer, the one area that really stuck out to me was the question on a VP's role. I was a little unsettled by Palin's insinuation that a VP's role is not strictly regulated to the Executive branch. It is clearly stated, in my opinion, in the Constitution that a VP duties lay firmly in the Executive Branch and not in some limbo realm in between the Legislative and Executive. Her answer came off a bit to Dick Cheney for my liking.
I think that what she said should concerning this should be getting a lot more attention today than anything else she said. She wants power. This should be its own thread.
The fact that it seems relatively minor almost makes it worse to me. Why make that up?
If he can't be truthful about ANYTHING, how can you believe anything that comes out of his mouth?
More examples of Biden's "fun with facts" from last night:
THE CONSTITUTION: Biden: "Vice President Cheney's been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. He has — he has — the idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the executive — he works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."
Article 1 of the Constitution does not, in fact, define the role of the Vice President of the United States. It defines the role of the legislative branch, otherwise known as the branch in which Joe Biden has served for the last 36 years.
IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN SPENDING: Biden said that the U.S. spends more in Iraq in one month than it has in Afghanistan in six or seven years.
That figure is off by 2000 percent.
‘KICKED HEZBOLLAH OUT OF LEBANON’: Biden: When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said, and Barack said, ‘Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.”
Reuters thinks he meant to refer to Syria, but I still don't think it would be accurate to say the U.S. kicked Syria out of Lebanon. The Lebanese kicked Syria out of Lebanon.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT: Biden's statement that McCain voted against the Violence Against Women Act is accurate. But as Robert Byers notes, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Morrison, the Court ruled that much of Biden's law was an unconstitutional power grab by Congress of rights reserved to the states. Nobody voted against the WAWA because they support violence against women; they objected over constiutional concerns that a Supreme Court majority validated.
The conventional wisdom seems to be Biden was "better on substance." Well, it's easy to be good on substance when you're allowed to basically just make shit up.
I could win a debate on astrophysics, so long as it didn't matter if I was, you know, accurate.
he he....perhaps you and sarah can have that debate....she knows nothing either....
at least Biden answered a question or two....unlike mcpalin...don't ya know...
it funny...you say biden was accurate then go on to say he made things up...typical...:rolleyes:
So, neither side is for: gay marriage, universal health care, abolishing NCLB, and forging ahead w/ renewable energy research (backburner issue for Biden, he kept talking about "clean" coal, which is not clean by any means!). Key issues with me anyway. Looks like even though it's VERY necessary to get the republicans out of the White House, it looks like business as usual. :(
Neither party is for changing the technical definition on "marriage" from that of the union between one man and one woman.
Both parties are for the same civil rights as hetero couples and CIVIL UNIONS for gay couples. I agree. I'm glad that they do as well.
I don't know if that's the case. A lot of republicans want to change the constitution to state that marriage is between a man and a woman.
That's something akin to what I said....I think.
In response to Jeanwah I was just addressing what I thought she said which was that neither party was for gay marriage, which is true but not the entire story. Neither side (and we're just talking about the two tickets running, not every other Republican in office around the country) wants the term "marriage" to apply to gay couples.
I would love to hear a candidate just say that the government, no matter if it's federal, state or local, has no business getting involved in marriage. If a hetro or same sex couple walks into their local town or city hall they should be issues a civil union. Marriages should be left to religious institutions.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I would love to hear a candidate just say that the government, no matter if it's federal, state or local, has no business getting involved in marriage. If a hetro or same sex couple walks into their local town or city hall they should be issues a civil union. Marriages should be left to religious institutions.
I would love to hear a candidate just say that the government, no matter if it's federal, state or local, has no business getting involved in marriage. If a hetro or same sex couple walks into their local town or city hall they should be issues a civil union. Marriages should be left to religious institutions.
I'm sure someone has, and therefore has been labeled as radical, and reduced to not worth a shot as a serious candidate. That's what happens, unfortunately.
I would love to hear a candidate just say that the government, no matter if it's federal, state or local, has no business getting involved in marriage. If a hetro or same sex couple walks into their local town or city hall they should be issues a civil union. Marriages should be left to religious institutions.
It'll happen....we're evolving, slowly but surely, just to have a supposedly conservative presidential candidate say what she did is a huge step forward...would have been unthinkable just 20 years ago.
I would love to hear a candidate just say that the government, no matter if it's federal, state or local, has no business getting involved in marriage. If a hetro or same sex couple walks into their local town or city hall they should be issues a civil union. Marriages should be left to religious institutions.
I agree with you there, but I beleive there will be scam artist that are "domestic partners" scamming for the tax benefits. That right there is an insult to the gay community and you know it will happen.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
I will just repost what I stated in the other thread.
I think she did pretty good. I don't think the expectations for either candidate where extremely high. They basically just had to go into the debate and not loose it for their tickets. She definitely performed a lot better last night than she did in her interviews with Gibson and Couric. She dodged a few questions, but so did Biden, that she probably couldn't answer without sounding bad. Biden definitely did far better when it came to foreign policy, that is his strong suit, but he didn't mop the floor with her. While he definitely elaborated more, she stuck to talking points but from what I have heard she played her strongest asset and that is coming across as your average person and being able to connect with the public. All in all they both did better than expected. Neither performance won over large masses of independent voters but I don't believe that that was their aim. Their aim was not to screw up and just secure the base, especially for Palin, that they where the right choice for their party.
On a side note, as a neutral observer, the one area that really stuck out to me was the question on a VP's role. I was a little unsettled by Palin's insinuation that a VP's role is not strictly regulated to the Executive branch. It is clearly stated, in my opinion, in the Constitution that a VP duties lay firmly in the Executive Branch and not in some limbo realm in between the Legislative and Executive. Her answer came off a bit to Dick Cheney for my liking. As for Biden I was a disappointed that when his disagreements and criticism of Obama in the past was sort of brushed aside by him. I would have preferred that he just stated that yes him and Senator Obama have disagreed in the past and will probably disagree in the future. Honesty would have been a better policy that just beating around the bush.
I would also like to add the Gwen Ifill did a good job last night. All the excitement of her being unbaised where definitely unwarrented. She was able to but her personal beliefs aside and handled her job professionally.
I have to say, I think this is a fair post.
One point I'd like to make: I agree Ifill did a respectable job, but I still think she shouldn't have been there in the first place.
She basically is writing a book that will be worthless if Obama loses.
It wasn't just as if she were refereeing a basketball game in which you kinda like one of the teams more than the other. It was as if she were refereeing a basketball game in which she's bet on one of the teams.
I'm glad she seemed to be able hide her bias during the debate, but I wish she had gone out of her way to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I think it's important that everyone believe these debates are on the up and up. Having a moderator who is in the tank for one of the candidates just opens up too many doors.
I'm glad it worked out, but it never should have happened in the first place.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
One point I'd like to make: I agree Ifill did a respectable job, but I still think she shouldn't have been there in the first place.
She basically is writing a book that will be worthless if Obama loses.
It wasn't just as if she were refereeing a basketball game in which you kinda like one of the teams more than the other. It was as if she were refereeing a basketball game in which she's bet on one of the teams.
I'm glad she seemed to be able hide her bias during the debate, but I wish she had gone out of her way to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I think it's important that everyone believe these debates are on the up and up. Having a moderator who is in the tank for one of the candidates just opens up too many doors.
I'm glad it worked out, but it never should have happened in the first place.
a fucking book? who gives a shit about a goddamn book or how well it sells.
Comments
why don't you tell us...?
I'm not planning on seeing my doctor anytime soon (knock on wood)....
please share...
he defended her accusations while she wasn't able to defend his ... he for the most part answered the question while she less so ...
He mentioned recently having a meal at "Katie's Restaurant" on "Union Street" in Wilimington, Delaware ... where patrons allegedly spilled their guts about all the things the Republicans have done to them.
Problem is, Katie's Restaurant has been closed for years ...
http://www.delawareonline.com/blogs/secondhelpings/2008/10/joe-gives-delaware-shout-outs.html
for the least they could possibly do
holy fn shit...sweet jesus help us....this is absolutely terrible...
The fact that it seems relatively minor almost makes it worse to me. Why make that up?
If he can't be truthful about ANYTHING, how can you believe anything that comes out of his mouth?
More examples of Biden's "fun with facts" from last night:
THE CONSTITUTION: Biden: "Vice President Cheney's been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. He has — he has — the idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the executive — he works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."
Article 1 of the Constitution does not, in fact, define the role of the Vice President of the United States. It defines the role of the legislative branch, otherwise known as the branch in which Joe Biden has served for the last 36 years.
IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN SPENDING: Biden said that the U.S. spends more in Iraq in one month than it has in Afghanistan in six or seven years.
That figure is off by 2000 percent.
‘KICKED HEZBOLLAH OUT OF LEBANON’: Biden: When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said, and Barack said, ‘Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.”
Reuters thinks he meant to refer to Syria, but I still don't think it would be accurate to say the U.S. kicked Syria out of Lebanon. The Lebanese kicked Syria out of Lebanon.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT: Biden's statement that McCain voted against the Violence Against Women Act is accurate. But as Robert Byers notes, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Morrison, the Court ruled that much of Biden's law was an unconstitutional power grab by Congress of rights reserved to the states. Nobody voted against the WAWA because they support violence against women; they objected over constiutional concerns that a Supreme Court majority validated.
The conventional wisdom seems to be Biden was "better on substance." Well, it's easy to be good on substance when you're allowed to basically just make shit up.
I could win a debate on astrophysics, so long as it didn't matter if I was, you know, accurate.
for the least they could possibly do
However, if there is one important comment made last night and should sway any voter it's this one made by Palin... that the job of VP should have more power. That statement alone, should alert every single voter in this country as to exactly what she wants in this job!!!
He also likes to be a dishonest shmuck about things like 9/11.
Mr. "It's Classified" ... what a cock.
Not that i expect him to answer any of the questions, and blow the lid ...
but the self-richeous smug look on his face makes me want to slap the everloving shit out of him.
What a fuck hole.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Uhh... did you watch the debate, or do you just constantly love to trash it? Joe Biden last night:
"I don't have the stomach for genocide when it comes to Darfur. We can now impose a no-fly zone. It's within our capacity. We can lead NATO if we're willing to take a hard stand. We can, I've been in those camps in Chad. I've seen the suffering, thousands and tens of thousands have died and are dying. We should rally the world to act and demonstrate it by our own movement to provide the helicopters to get the 21,000 forces of the African Union in there now to stop this genocide."
Um.
I have to give Biden this one.
His attempt to use Article 1 was a sort of Reverse Logic scenario.
He was saying that since Article 1 defines the VPs role in the senate in a very LIMITED scope, it is clear the intention.
He was doing a soundbite rundown of the constitution, and admittedly he seemed to forget what Artilcle I was actually titled.
However if you need proof the VP is part of the executive branch,
all you have to do is look to ARTICLE II: THE EXECUTIVE
and then the VPs executive status is further deliniated in Article II, Section 4
THE VP is CLEARLY described UNDER ARTICLE II -- THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AS BEING "A CIVIL OFFICER OF THE UNITED STATES". The Supreme Court has even ruled that members of the House and Senate are NOT Civil Officers of the United States, so there you go.
I'm not trying to defend Biden, just pointing out that what he said about the constitutions explicit delination of the VPs branch affiliation is correct, regardless of Biden's possible ignorance of the actual articles involved.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think she did pretty good. I don't think the expectations for either candidate where extremely high. They basically just had to go into the debate and not loose it for their tickets. She definitely performed a lot better last night than she did in her interviews with Gibson and Couric. She dodged a few questions, but so did Biden, that she probably couldn't answer without sounding bad. Biden definitely did far better when it came to foreign policy, that is his strong suit, but he didn't mop the floor with her. While he definitely elaborated more, she stuck to talking points but from what I have heard she played her strongest asset and that is coming across as your average person and being able to connect with the public. All in all they both did better than expected. Neither performance won over large masses of independent voters but I don't believe that that was their aim. Their aim was not to screw up and just secure the base, especially for Palin, that they where the right choice for their party.
On a side note, as a neutral observer, the one area that really stuck out to me was the question on a VP's role. I was a little unsettled by Palin's insinuation that a VP's role is not strictly regulated to the Executive branch. It is clearly stated, in my opinion, in the Constitution that a VP duties lay firmly in the Executive Branch and not in some limbo realm in between the Legislative and Executive. Her answer came off a bit to Dick Cheney for my liking. As for Biden I was a disappointed that when his disagreements and criticism of Obama in the past was sort of brushed aside by him. I would have preferred that he just stated that yes him and Senator Obama have disagreed in the past and will probably disagree in the future. Honesty would have been a better policy that just beating around the bush.
I would also like to add the Gwen Ifill did a good job last night. All the excitement of her being unbaised where definitely unwarrented. She was able to but her personal beliefs aside and handled her job professionally.
I think that what she said should concerning this should be getting a lot more attention today than anything else she said. She wants power. This should be its own thread.
he he....perhaps you and sarah can have that debate....she knows nothing either....
at least Biden answered a question or two....unlike mcpalin...don't ya know...
it funny...you say biden was accurate then go on to say he made things up...typical...:rolleyes:
What did she bring to the table that is new?
Both parties are for the same civil rights as hetero couples and CIVIL UNIONS for gay couples. I agree. I'm glad that they do as well.
...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.
FaceSpace
I don't know if that's the case. A lot of republicans want to change the constitution to state that marriage is between a man and a woman.
In response to Jeanwah I was just addressing what I thought she said which was that neither party was for gay marriage, which is true but not the entire story. Neither side (and we're just talking about the two tickets running, not every other Republican in office around the country) wants the term "marriage" to apply to gay couples.
...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.
FaceSpace
I agree fully with this statement.
I agree with you there, but I beleive there will be scam artist that are "domestic partners" scamming for the tax benefits. That right there is an insult to the gay community and you know it will happen.
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
I have to say, I think this is a fair post.
One point I'd like to make: I agree Ifill did a respectable job, but I still think she shouldn't have been there in the first place.
She basically is writing a book that will be worthless if Obama loses.
It wasn't just as if she were refereeing a basketball game in which you kinda like one of the teams more than the other. It was as if she were refereeing a basketball game in which she's bet on one of the teams.
I'm glad she seemed to be able hide her bias during the debate, but I wish she had gone out of her way to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. I think it's important that everyone believe these debates are on the up and up. Having a moderator who is in the tank for one of the candidates just opens up too many doors.
I'm glad it worked out, but it never should have happened in the first place.
for the least they could possibly do