The Final Debate Thread

1…567911

Comments

  • Thecure
    Thecure Posts: 814
    dream_on_it wrote:
    Apparently a lot of people (including my husband) saw it the same way you did...? I know I am biased towards Obama, but am I really so biased that I am the only one who saw McCain as whiney? (ie: Obama didn't agree to do 10 town hall meetings like McCain wanted, so that is why McCain started negative ads?) And I thought McCain, when he wasn't whining, was skirting the truths. (How can a new tax on healthcare not be an increase in taxes? How can veterans teach and improve our school system if they have no teacher training/certification?)

    I am not very eloquent so I hope that made sense. And, I love Cincinnati! Wish I was there!

    i believe that McCain does not have respect for Obama and i think the little respect he did have for him was lost when Obama didn't say yes to teh townhall meetings. Mccain saw what i believe alot of people see/saw in Obama and that was great speaker but maybe no details.
    People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
    - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

    If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me."
    - Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    prytoj wrote:

    Paaaleeease. Get your nephew trazered by a cop and get back to me.

    You can't change the argument you were having just because you were wrong. You took issue with someone stating that it was a fact that Palin acted unethically. You said, and I quote;

    "oh yeah?

    from the OFFICIAL finding, not some spin:

    "I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooter was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was LIKELY a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a PROPER and LAWFUL exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads."

    FACT, OFFICIAL RECORD, educate yourself with the official record, not the TV"

    You took the one part of the findings that made it look like Palin had done everything by the book and ignored the rest. I'm not talking about the kid, I'm not talking about the wide range of Alaskan law, and the quote above shows that you were not speaking about those things either. You said it was a FACT that Palin had acted ethically, and the actual report proves otherwise. And I think it's pretty rich that a poster who has been telling Obama supporters that they need to stop being zombies and "look at the record" either did not look at the record himself, or looked at the record and chose the part he wanted to try and prove an assertion that was clearly false. As I said, you can't change the argument mid-stream because you were wrong.
  • Lizard
    Lizard So Cal Posts: 12,091
    inmytree wrote:
    a couple other thoughts, the Joe the Plumber stuff was annoying....I'm sorry, but I don't feel bad about Mr. Plumber and his horrible plight...:rolleyes:

    Almost makes you want Joe Six pack back.
    almost
    ;)
    So I'll just lie down and wait for the dream
    Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
  • prytoj
    prytoj Posts: 536
    digster wrote:
    You can't change the argument you were having just because you were wrong. You took issue with someone stating that it was a fact that Palin acted unethically. You said, and I quote;

    "oh yeah?

    from the OFFICIAL finding, not some spin:

    "I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooter was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was LIKELY a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety. In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a PROPER and LAWFUL exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads."

    FACT, OFFICIAL RECORD, educate yourself with the official record, not the TV"

    You took the one part of the findings that made it look like Palin had done everything by the book and ignored the rest. I'm not talking about the kid, I'm not talking about the statute. I'm talking about the results of the findings; you said it was a FACT that Palin had acted unethically, and the actual report proves otherwise. And I think it's pretty rich that a poster who has been telling Obama supporters that they need to stop being zombies and "look at the record" either did not look at the record himself, or looked at the record and chose the part he wanted to try and prove an assertion that was clearly false. As I said, you can't change the argument mid-stream because you were wrong.

    The other stuff is scenery, window dressing. If you take out the "abuse of power" verbage, which is a scare phrase, and just say she violated the code.
    then go read the code, you'll see it's so broad and weak, you just have to have perspective on this.

    and again, the record on the individual question stipulates that there SHOULD have been pressure to fire the guy. Perspective.

    independent voter, look at the record.
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    prytoj wrote:
    The other stuff is scenery, window dressing. If you take out the "abuse of power" verbage, which is a scare phrase, and just say she violated the code.
    then go read the code, you'll see it's so broad and weak, you just have to have perspective on this.

    and again, the record on the individual question stipulates that there SHOULD have been pressure to fire the guy. Perspective.

    independent voter, look at the record.

    I can't tell if you actually believe what you're saying or are trying to dig yourself out of the hole you're in. The other stuff is scenery? You're talking about perspective, you're talking about the kid, you're talking about this and that, where your argument was that it was FACT (as you are keen to put that in capital letters) that she had done nothing wrong, and that the board's findings supported that assertion. That would be fine, except the problem was that the board did not support that assertion; it contradicted that assertion. And as I keep saying, it's hard for me to take your claims to "look at the record" seriously when you made a claim that the record disproves, and then try to get out of it by bringing perspective into account when it was not a part of your argument in the first place.

    FACT is, the board found that Palin acted unethically, which was the exact opposite of your argument. You know how I know that? I "looked at the record." You said the board hadn't found that she violated the code. You were wrong; there's no perspective that can change that.
  • prytoj
    prytoj Posts: 536
    It is also being said among the left-elite talking heads, like the wonderful
    Rachel Maddow, that she broke the law. exact words.

    This is a lie. They are lying to people, robbing us of perspective.
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    prytoj wrote:
    It is also being said among the left-elite talking heads, like the wonderful
    Rachel Maddow, that she broke the law. exact words.

    This is a lie. They are lying to people, robbing us of perspective.

    Again, changing the argument. We weren't talking about Rachel Maddow; we were talking about the debate we were having in this thread. You talk about being an independent voter, but there's nothing independent about being unwilling to assess all the information and not just the parts that fit favorably with your opinion.
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    prytoj wrote:
    It is also being said among the left-elite talking heads, like the wonderful
    Rachel Maddow, that she broke the law. exact words.

    This is a lie. They are lying to people, robbing us of perspective.

    You can't dig yourself out of the "FACT" hole that you put yourself in, so you are bringing up Maddow as a distraction? "Look over there, a partisan pundit lied"... Would it be ok to add some irrelevant Hannity lies to discussion?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    faithful2you wrote:
    No matter what side you are on or what your beliefs are. McCain won this debate easily. Obama was struggling a lot of the time. Just an objective review.

    Obama is a very good speaker and usually comes back to McCain's comments strong but I have to say, I'm tired of him always going back to the "last 8 years" or the "last 4 years". Is he running against Bush or McCain?

    I have a feeling that McCain picked up a lot of undecided voters last night.

    McCain probably won on points, but the points he made probably helped the base (until his judges fuck-up). I don't think he did anything last night to bring in the middle of the road voters.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    NeilJam wrote:
    This debate had the worst moderator of all of them. He kept letting McCain get the last word on nearly every question. In spite of that I think Obama still did a better job there.

    I think that Schieffer was the best of the three. He actually followed up questions by pressing for answers.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • prytoj
    prytoj Posts: 536
    Article four of the finding tells the story of everything that wen down.

    See for yourself, look at the facts. challenge each side equally. see the whole picture.

    http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/Branchflowerreport.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    prytoj wrote:
    Article four of the finding tells the story of everything that wen down.

    See for yourself, look at the facts. challenge each side equally. see the whole picture.

    http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/Branchflowerreport.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf


    Dude, I don't know what to tell you, but once again your argument is faulty. Article four of the finding details how thus far Gov. Palin has not adequately cooperated with the investigation for whatever reason, and I quote from page 76...

    "Although I do not assert any bad faith on the part of the Attorney General's office or AAG I have been working with, it does seem that there has been an unusual delay in material that was requested by me in writing two months ago."

    If anything, that strengthens our argument, not yours. You should take your own advice and "look at the facts", because they clearly prove your argument is faulty. You're doing what a partisan does; you make an argument, and when that argument proves to be false, you either bring up another piece of evidence that does not fit what you are saying or you try to change what the argument was in the first place (you saying it's all about the kid, when that clearly was not what we were talking about). That's the sign of a Palin surrogate, not an independent mind.
  • prytoj
    prytoj Posts: 536
    digster wrote:
    Dude, I don't know what to tell you, but once again your argument is faulty. Article four of the finding details how thus far Gov. Palin has not adequately cooperated with the investigation for whatever reason, and I quote from page 76...

    "Although I do not assert any bad faith on the part of the Attorney General's office or AAG I have been working with, it does seem that there has been an unusual delay in material that was requested by me in writing two months ago."

    If anything, that strengthens our argument, not yours. You should take your own advice and "look at the facts", because they clearly prove your argument is faulty. You're doing what a partisan does; you make an argument, and when that argument proves to be false, you either bring up another piece of evidence that does not fit what you are saying or you try to change what the argument was in the first place (you saying it's all about the kid, when that clearly was not what we were talking about). That's the sign of a Palin surrogate, not an independent mind.

    your quote is one of subejctivity,
    taking an argument apart piece by piece is hardly cherry-picking
    but if you think so.
    read to actual story if you want to really get to the point
    then read the code
    then read the finding

    do not speak of what you do not know.

    all the info is here.

    evaluate for yourself...
  • Speakers
    Speakers Posts: 252
    digster wrote:
    Dude, I don't know what to tell you, but once again your argument is faulty. Article four of the finding details how thus far Gov. Palin has not adequately cooperated with the investigation for whatever reason, and I quote from page 76...

    "Although I do not assert any bad faith on the part of the Attorney General's office or AAG I have been working with, it does seem that there has been an unusual delay in material that was requested by me in writing two months ago."

    If anything, that strengthens our argument, not yours. You should take your own advice and "look at the facts", because they clearly prove your argument is faulty. You're doing what a partisan does; you make an argument, and when that argument proves to be false, you either bring up another piece of evidence that does not fit what you are saying or you try to change what the argument was in the first place (you saying it's all about the kid, when that clearly was not what we were talking about). That's the sign of a Palin surrogate, not an independent mind.


    I wouldn't bother arguing with prytoj anymore. They are either a troll or somebody so off the deep end that using logic just wont compute.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    prytoj wrote:
    Ayers is a self-admitted domestic terrorist. Obama is downplaying his associattion with him. Because...
    People I know throw parties for me, in my honor, in their own home, all the time.
    So, Obama either knew and lied, or didn't and is incompetent. which one is it?

    You can't dispute Ayers in an america hater but further,
    His own paster Wright "god d*** America"
    His own wife "for the first time, I'm proud of my country"

    This is an overall pattern that speaks to an overall environemnt of "ugly amerca" sentiment.

    He is at best surrounded by an environment that expresses shame in America, and at worst an active part of that environment. I have no time for either.

    You certainly cannot say that about McCain.

    the corporate money, the media domination...connect the dots.
    Look at the facts.

    proof negative smear campaign tactics work ...

    mccain is associated with the bush administration - probably the single most corrupt entity that exists today ...
  • jimed14
    jimed14 Posts: 9,488
    Speakers wrote:
    I wouldn't bother arguing with prytoj anymore. They are either a troll or somebody so off the deep end that using logic just wont compute.

    seriously, arguing with prytoj about anything is like triyng to argue the sky is blue with a blind person ... FACT!
    "You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91

    "I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    prytoj wrote:
    your quote is one of subejctivity,
    taking an argument apart piece by piece is hardly cherry-picking
    but if you think so.
    read to actual story if you want to really get to the point
    then read the code
    then read the finding

    do not speak of what you do not know.

    all the info is here.

    evaluate for yourself...

    OK, nice try. Speakers is quite right. When you're done being a partisan and become 'independent' then we could have a good debate, but it seems like you and not an Obama supporter like myself is the zombie. There's nothing subjective about the argument; you said it was a fact that the board had not found that Palin had acted unethically. That is not fact. So if you can't admit when the facts prove you wrong, there's nothing to talk about. Have a good day.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    digster wrote:
    OK, nice try. Speakers is quite right. When you're done being a partisan and become 'independent' then we could have a good debate, but it seems like you and not an Obama supporter like myself is the zombie. There's nothing subjective about the argument; you said it was a fact that the board had not found that Palin had acted unethically. That is not fact. So if you can't admit when the facts prove you wrong, there's nothing to talk about. Have a good day.

    seriously ... i've said it before ... but anyone who is voting for mccain is clearly partisan ... no true independent would reward the last 8 years with another 4 ...
  • prytoj
    prytoj Posts: 536
    digster wrote:
    OK, nice try. Speakers is quite right. When you're done being a partisan and become 'independent' then we could have a good debate, but it seems like you and not an Obama supporter like myself is the zombie. There's nothing subjective about the argument; you said it was a fact that the board had not found that Palin had acted unethically. That is not fact. So if you can't admit when the facts prove you wrong, there's nothing to talk about. Have a good day.

    Palin's overall record of service is largely ignored.
    The overwhelming obsessive pursuit of this sole issue is evidence of that.

    And the conclusions that are being forced upon you by the media on this issue are way overcharacterized in my view. but the relevant information is now available, so all the people are free to decide.

    We did that good work today for the few people here, and I thank you

    Debate involves two points of view, you gotta deal with that.
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    polaris wrote:
    seriously ... i've said it before ... but anyone who is voting for mccain is clearly partisan ... no true independent would reward the last 8 years with another 4 ...

    I don't think that's entirely true... People vote for (or against) candidates for all sorts of reasons, and independents are people who are independent on every issue. Independents have different views on everything from foreign policy, healthcare, trade, abortion, etc.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln

Categories