http://gamingtrend.com
October 25, 2014, 09:17:42 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Make your VEEP predictions!  (Read 35566 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #440 on: September 19, 2008, 01:43:19 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on September 19, 2008, 05:34:36 AM

I don't care if your criticisms of Palin are inappropriate or unfair.

Wow. So you don't care at all who Palin is so long as she is Republican?
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #441 on: September 19, 2008, 02:15:39 PM »

Quote from: Crux on September 19, 2008, 01:43:19 PM

Quote from: cheeba on September 19, 2008, 05:34:36 AM

I don't care if your criticisms of Palin are inappropriate or unfair.

Wow. So you don't care at all who Palin is so long as she is Republican?

Ding ding ding!  We have a winner!
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #442 on: September 19, 2008, 03:07:13 PM »

Quote from: Crux on September 19, 2008, 01:43:19 PM

Quote from: cheeba on September 19, 2008, 05:34:36 AM

I don't care if your criticisms of Palin are inappropriate or unfair.

Wow. So you don't care at all who Palin is so long as she is Republican?
No, and that is a huge logical leap to get to your statement from my statement. Of course there are valid criticisms of her out there, and I've already talked about how I'm not a big fan of her lack of experience. I'm largely undecided on her until the debates. But when a bunch of liberal people who wouldn't vote for McCain even if they were waterboarded act all outraged at her choice, and pile on, "here's yet more reasons we can't stand her! omg I'm gonna vote for Obama even harder now!" then it's just liberal porn and I tune out. That doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to criticisms of Palin. It means I am able to think critically of her myself, without requiring the constant bitching and whining of these people over her every word and action.
Logged
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #443 on: September 19, 2008, 03:14:06 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on September 19, 2008, 03:07:13 PM

No, and that is a huge logical leap to get to your statement from my statement.

Except it isn't a huge logical leap. Saying "I don't care whether or not you live" also implies that you don't care whether or not someone dies.

Ie, if you don't care if the criticisms of her are inappropriate or unfair, you also don't care whether or not the criticisms of her are appropriate or fair. In essence, criticism of Sarah Palin has no meaning for you. This means you don't care how legitimate, honest, knowledgeable or qualified she is. Essentially she could be a walking, breathing gummy bear, but as long as it is a liberal pointing to her and saying "She's a gummy bear" you couldn't give a crap.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 3633


View Profile
« Reply #444 on: September 19, 2008, 03:21:14 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on September 19, 2008, 05:34:36 AM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on September 19, 2008, 01:46:36 AM

That was on September 5th.  I'm still waiting for an answer.
You know, if you and your liberal brethren ever decided to stop being so condescending, this R&P forum might actually get more than 1-2 posts a day.

Which part of my statement was condescending, cheeba?  The part when I gave YellowKing two weeks to answer the question?  The part where I thought he might have been caught up with some real-world affairs and simply hadn't seen my question?  The part where I posted, as a simple point of fact, that I'm still waiting for him to explain how my reaction to Sarah Palin's abysmal record has been "hysterical?"

Your history on this board reveals that you are not going to answer the question, so I'll do it now: none of the above.  In fact, offering to hear someone out, offering them the opportunity to back up an insult I think is baseless is the exact *opposite* of condescension.

YellowKing was specifically responding to one of my posts about Sarah Palin's policy failures and bogus claims when he brushed off all criticism of her political record as "hysterics" by people with "their panties in a bunch."  I think he should have to back that public insult by showing everyone which of my posts fit that description, and that request hasn't evaporated just because he decided to take a couple weeks off from the conversation.

Quote from: cheeba
I don't care if your criticisms of Palin are inappropriate or unfair.  A bit of criticism of her is just fine.  But overall, many on the left, especially those who post on political forums, just can't help themselves and feel they have to go after her every word and deed.

In other words: you don't care about the substance of a criticism, just the overall quantity of it.  How unfortunate that John McCain didn't select a running mate with more honesty and fewer scandals.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #445 on: September 19, 2008, 04:50:40 PM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on September 19, 2008, 03:21:14 PM

The part when I gave YellowKing two weeks to answer the question?
Yep. Again, I don't speak for YK, but if you ask me a question that I don't answer for 2 weeks, it's usually because it's not worth my time to answer. Thinking otherwise is a bit conceited.
Quote
The part where I thought he might have been caught up with some real-world affairs and simply hadn't seen my question?
Right.
Quote
The part where I posted, as a simple point of fact, that I'm still waiting for him to explain how my reaction to Sarah Palin's abysmal record has been "hysterical?"
Yep. You've been waiting for 2 weeks for that explanation? Bit needy, isn't it?
Quote
Your history on this board reveals that you are not going to answer the question, so I'll do it now
Guess you're not very good at history, huh? Not to mention it's condescending to assume first that I won't answer the question and second to ask a question that you feel obligated to answer yourself.
Quote
offering them the opportunity to back up an insult I think is baseless is the exact *opposite* of condescension.
He had the opportunity whether you "offered" it or not. And insult? Please.
Quote
"their panties in a bunch."  I think he should have to back that public insult by showing everyone which of my posts fit that description
Public insult? Your panties in a bunch is an insult? That's insane.
Quote
In other words: you don't care about the substance of a criticism, just the overall quantity of it.
Why, in your wildest imagination, would it ever occur to you that you are capable of a reasonable interpretation of my words?
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #446 on: September 19, 2008, 05:00:32 PM »

Quote from: Crux on September 19, 2008, 03:14:06 PM

Except it isn't a huge logical leap. Saying "I don't care whether or not you live" also implies that you don't care whether or not someone dies.
Bad analogy. The proper analogy here is if I said "I don't care whether or not you live" and you took the leap from that to: "I don't care whether or not other people live."
Quote
Ie, if you don't care if the criticisms of her are inappropriate or unfair, you also don't care whether or not the criticisms of her are appropriate or fair.
You're missing a huge word in my original statement: your.
Quote
In essence, criticism of Sarah Palin has no meaning for you.
I hate quoting myself:
Quote from: cheeba
A bit of criticism of her is just fine.
I think I've made it clear than when it reaches the point of being liberal porn that is when it's unworthy of listening to. And yes, if someone who were not a blind partisan had something critical to say about Palin, it would then be worth my attention.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 3633


View Profile
« Reply #447 on: September 19, 2008, 07:05:43 PM »

Quote from: cheeba
Yep. Again, I don't speak for YK, but if you ask me a question that I don't answer for 2 weeks, it's usually because it's not worth my time to answer.

Yes, I know.

In this thread, you claimed that black people would all vote for Barack Obama "because he looks like them."  I pointed out the inherent racism of that belief and asked you to explain yourself, but you declined and eventually ducked out of the thread.

Then there's the thread where you got upset at the assertion that John McCain's campaign was in ideological lockstep with the Bush administration.  I invited you to spend less time launching personal insults at other posters and more time on arguing the issues by listing off all the ways in which they differ.  You declared that providing any factual evidence for your outrage would be a waste of time, and when I pointed out how that revealed the weakness of your position, you replied that my head was up Brendan's ass.

Or the thread where you accused poster Jeff Jones of calling anyone who disagreed with him an idiot.  He asked you to cite an example of when that had happened, and after you asked for more time to come up with a justification for your personal attack, you suddenly announced the issue was settled and vanished from the thread.

One example that particularly sticks in my mind is the time the owner of this website specifically asked you to explain your behavior, and you spent two days tap-dancing around the issue until I finally called you out on it.

You decide a lot of questions aren't "worth your time" to answer, cheeba.  It's become a predictable routine: jumping into a conversation to fire off a salvo of wild conjecture and false accusations, getting hostile and quibbling about semantics when somebody takes issue with it, and eventually declaring your own victory so you can slink off to the next thread.

I don't know why you've decided to inject yourself into the middle of this, cheeba, but maybe it's time for your to complete your cycle and move on to the next thread.  YellowKing may decide to offer up an explanation for his dismissive insult, he may choose to apologize for it, or he may choose to avoid the issue altogether, but no amount of dust you kick up is going to deny him the chance to set things right.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3152



View Profile
« Reply #448 on: September 19, 2008, 08:40:16 PM »

Quote
That was on September 5th.  I'm still waiting for an answer.

If you think it'll help out your argument or bolster your image, YellowKing, you're free to post as many insults about me as you like.  I do think it's fair to reserve the right to know exactly which of my posts you're dismissing as "hysterics," though.

Sorry, I was not ignoring the question. I honestly haven't done anything but skim through this particular thread, and I totally missed the whole cheeba/YK/AA controversy.

To answer your question, I said, "you guys." I was not referring to you specifically, Autistic Angel, but to the Dems in general on this board and other boards across the net. It was evident that the Obama camp was in disarray after the announcement of Palin, and there was all sorts of frantic behavior to try to discredit her as quickly as possible - this is what I referred to as "hysterics."

You took it *way* too personally. My comments were not meant as insults, and they were certainly not meant as insults directed specifically at you. It was a simple comment borne out of amusement on my part at what I felt was chaotic behavior by the Democrats to negate Palin's influence on the election. After all, I highly doubt had Obama been leading comfortably in the polls and Palin had given the Republicans no worthy post-convention bounce, that the Dems would be nearly as forceful and frenetic in attacking her and her record. Am I wrong?

To be quite honest, I pay little heed to who posts what. I tend to respond to posts for their content, not their poster, and am certainly not interested in getting personal with any members on this board. R&P is a diversion for me during the day, and a way to talk about politics with people in a way that I don't get to do in real life (my family/friends have zero interest in politics - don't keep up with them, don't discuss them, could care less). So even though I may vigorously defend a candidate, or engage in partisan talk, it's from a standpoint of chatting with a bunch of buddies at a bar. I'm never going to come in here with personal vendettas against anyone, or looking to pick a fight.

Hope that explains my side of it.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #449 on: September 19, 2008, 09:12:35 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on September 19, 2008, 08:40:16 PM

It was evident that the Obama camp was in disarray after the announcement of Palin, and there was all sorts of frantic behavior to try to discredit her as quickly as possible - this is what I referred to as "hysterics."

No one's been in "hysterics" - Palin is essentially unknown, so everyone in the world was scrambling to find out information on McCain's pick for his presumed successor.  Ultimately, all that focus on Palin has had a result - now that people have more information about her policies and background, she's the least favorably viewed of any of the Presidential/VP candidates.

On 9/11/08, she was +17 in the favorable column (52 favorable, 35 unfavorable, 13 no opinion). In just a single week, in today's polls, she's plummeted to -5 (41/46/13).  In contrast, McCain's at +0, Biden's at +16, and Obama's at +22.

Caveat: These polls are sponsored by a liberal blog.  They're conducted by Research 2000, a professional non-partisan polling firm.  The results are not influenced by the sponsor.
Logged
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3152



View Profile
« Reply #450 on: September 19, 2008, 11:57:23 PM »

Quote
No one's been in "hysterics"

I read plenty of articles - in mainstream newspapers, no less, that Democrats on the hill and elsewhere were getting increasingly nervous about Palin and the post-convention surge McCain enjoyed in large part due to her. Rather that nervousness - which led to worried calls for Obama to do more to stop the Palin freight train - is classified as "hysterics" to you is a case of splitting hairs. My definition may not meet your definition, but my general point is that trying to spin the post-convention Palin reaction as a calm, cool, collected gathering of facts by the Democrats is utterly ridiculous. Again, I'm not making this up - there were plenty of articles out at the time. If you absolutely need proof I'll be happy to seek them out and link them.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #451 on: September 20, 2008, 12:12:56 AM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on September 19, 2008, 07:05:43 PM

In this thread, you claimed that black people would all vote for Barack Obama "because he looks like them."  I pointed out the inherent racism of that belief and asked you to explain yourself, but you declined and eventually ducked out of the thread.
It should have been pretty flipping obvious that I was being sarcastic, for the most part. Besides, I explained it later in the thread. There are indeed black people who will be voting for Barack Obama because he is black. In fact I bet there are quite a few black people who will do so. That is shallow, to me. Brendan was making the argument that people who disagree with him should be shamed into shutting up. That is about the most offensive concept I could ever read, totally un-American. So I applied a little reductio ad absurdum action to it, and voila, you see that when taken to a level which is ridiculous but perfectly logical within the concept, it leads to an entirely ridiculous and absurd outcome.
Quote
Then there's the thread where you got upset at the assertion that John McCain's campaign was in ideological lockstep with the Bush administration.
I never get upset.
Quote
you replied that my head was up Brendan's ass.
Yeah, have you had any luck with getting it out?
Quote
Or the thread where you blah blah blah
Holy shit dude. You are stalker scary. No one gives a shit about your little petty problems with me. Though, to set the record straight:
Quote
after you asked for more time to come up with a justification for your personal attack, you suddenly announced the issue was settled and vanished from the thread.
You apparently didn't read my response just 2 posts later where I showed where he, in fact, called anyone who thought Bush was doing a "good job" (which was a clear reference to me) were "idjits."
Quote
One example that particularly sticks in my mind is the time the owner of this website specifically asked you to explain your behavior, and you spent two days tap-dancing around the issue until I finally called you out on it.
Lol. I know sarcasm is difficult to get across sometimes. But when I call Michelle Obama a racist for calling Barack Obama her "baby's daddy," something should click.
Quote
You decide a lot of questions aren't "worth your time" to answer, cheeba.
Ask more worthwhile questions maybe?
Quote
I don't know why you've decided to inject yourself into the middle of this, cheeba, but maybe it's time for your to complete your cycle and move on to the next thread.
This is a forum, my friend. As such, when there are posts I see fit to respond to, I will respond. It is up to the moderators and administrators to decide if my posting should ever be limited, not you.
Quote
no amount of dust you kick up is going to deny him the chance to set things right.
In the previous post I just told you that he can speak for himself and respond or not, however he wishes. Way to not listen.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #452 on: September 20, 2008, 12:47:29 AM »

Quote from: YellowKing on September 19, 2008, 11:57:23 PM

Quote
No one's been in "hysterics"

I read plenty of articles - in mainstream newspapers, no less, that Democrats on the hill and elsewhere were getting increasingly nervous about Palin and the post-convention surge McCain enjoyed in large part due to her. Rather that nervousness - which led to worried calls for Obama to do more to stop the Palin freight train - is classified as "hysterics" to you is a case of splitting hairs. My definition may not meet your definition, but my general point is that trying to spin the post-convention Palin reaction as a calm, cool, collected gathering of facts by the Democrats is utterly ridiculous. Again, I'm not making this up - there were plenty of articles out at the time. If you absolutely need proof I'll be happy to seek them out and link them.

I'm happy to grant that there was a frenzy of fact-finding and initial confusion after the Palin pick.  If Obama had picked a complete unknown, the McCain camp would've been in the same position.  And yes, I'm sure the campaign was concerned about convention bounce.  In my observation though, the campaign moved quickly into a phase where they focused on Palin's inconsistencies, misrepresentations and overreaches as Governor, and the current result is that she is, nationally, the least popular of the four - though clearly the most popular among the republican base.

In short, if you're talking about the centrists at the DLC, sure.  If you're talking about the Obama campaign, I disagree.  If you're talking about specific posters here, I don't see it.
Logged
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1541



View Profile
« Reply #453 on: September 20, 2008, 02:16:55 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on September 19, 2008, 05:00:32 PM

Quote from: Crux on September 19, 2008, 03:14:06 PM

Except it isn't a huge logical leap. Saying "I don't care whether or not you live" also implies that you don't care whether or not someone dies.
Bad analogy. The proper analogy here is if I said "I don't care whether or not you live" and you took the leap from that to: "I don't care whether or not other people live."

First of all it wasn't an analogy. It was a simile. Secondly, it neither 'bad' nor incorrect. You can pretend it was if it makes you feel better, but the simple truth speaks otherwise.

"I don't care if x lives" is the same as "I don't care if x dies". You can replace the x with singular, plural, or whatever you want. The logical consistency is the same regardless of what 'x' is. Likewise, if we take the same flawless logic to your sentence, you can clearly see that your statement indicates you don't care whether someone's criticism of Palin is valid, fair or otherwise. Anyone with half a brain can see that to its logical conclusion. But then logic seems to have little to do with your rabid postings in the R&P forums.
Logged
VynlSol
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 680


View Profile
« Reply #454 on: September 20, 2008, 03:15:45 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on September 20, 2008, 12:12:56 AM


...

Quote
you replied that my head was up Brendan's ass.
Yeah, have you had any luck with getting it out?
Quote
Or the thread where you blah blah blah
Holy shit dude. You are stalker scary. No one gives a shit about your little petty problems with me. Though, to set the record straight:

...


This thread delivers. What, I'm not sure, but I've been having some good laughs outta alla this.

I'm not a Democrat. I think Palin is a ridiculous embarassment at this stage. Every time I see that commercial, "The Original Mavericks," I cringe.

I was seriously considering casting my vote for McCain...as of about a week ago I am with certainty NOT going to be voting for him. And for the first time since I've been able to vote, the VP candidate has played a large part in helping to solidify my thoughts regarding who to vote for.

I don't know that I'll vote for Obama. I may vote for Darth Vader. We'll see.
Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #455 on: September 20, 2008, 05:42:40 AM »

Quote from: Crux on September 20, 2008, 02:16:55 AM

"I don't care if x lives" is the same as "I don't care if x dies".
Pretty much. That's not the problem. The problem occurs when you attempt to apply that to my statement.

My statement:I don't care if your criticisms of Palin are inappropriate or unfair.
Your logical leap: So you don't care at all who Palin is so long as she is Republican?

That's not even close to "I don't care if x lives" vs. I don't care if x dies." That's not even in the same galaxy. You took a hyper-dimensional leap. Let's break it down.

You are saying that "criticisms" are a universal X. All criticisms are X. If I don't care for X, then you might be able to arrive to your statement. X, however, has components which are different.

Your criticisms, my criticisms, her criticisms, his criticisms - those are different things, no? As an example, I may consider Obama's stance on gun control too soft, you may think it's too restrictive. Your criticism does not = my criticism.

So, when I say that I don't care about "your criticisms" of Palin, I am talking specifically to some person. It does not follow logically that I don't care about all criticisms, just like it's not logical to assume I don't like all dogs if I say I don't like the neighbor's dog.
Quote
But then logic seems to have little to do with your rabid postings in the R&P forums.
Hey you're the one forcing me to explain what "your" means.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 3633


View Profile
« Reply #456 on: September 20, 2008, 06:44:41 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on September 19, 2008, 08:40:16 PM

Quote
That was on September 5th.  I'm still waiting for an answer.

If you think it'll help out your argument or bolster your image, YellowKing, you're free to post as many insults about me as you like.  I do think it's fair to reserve the right to know exactly which of my posts you're dismissing as "hysterics," though.

Sorry, I was not ignoring the question. I honestly haven't done anything but skim through this particular thread, and I totally missed the whole cheeba/YK/AA controversy.

I think that's fair.  There are plenty of posts I miss myself.

Quote from: YellowKing
To answer your question, I said, "you guys." I was not referring to you specifically, Autistic Angel, but to the Dems in general on this board and other boards across the net. It was evident that the Obama camp was in disarray after the announcement of Palin, and there was all sorts of frantic behavior to try to discredit her as quickly as possible - this is what I referred to as "hysterics."

I believe the frenzy of activity swirling around Sarah Palin following her nomination first originated from the fact that she was all but unknown on the national stage, and then intensified because she's turned out to have enough skeletons in her closet to fill two seasons of Cold Case.

Imagine if you were interviewing someone for a job posting, and you later discovered that the very first words out of her mouth were a bald-faced lie.  Not a lie about her preferred desert topping either, but one that specifically presented her previous job performance as the exact opposite of the truth.  Then imagine that after a little more digging, you discovered that she'd lied about a number of other things, too.  And what if, after being confronted with those lies and the evidence necessary to debunk them, her only response was to indifferently repeat the exact same lies?

Sarah Palin claims to have opposed the Bridge to Nowhere when, in fact, she campaigned for governor on preserving the project.  She claims to have opposed federal earmarks when her entire political career consists of securing multi-million dollar earmarks and squandering them on frivolous projects.  She presents herself as a fiscal conservative, yet she plunged her small town into millions of dollars worth of debt.  She talks about "putting government back on the side of the people" while wielding political power to elevate her cronies and exact revenge on personal grudges.

I cannot speak for other Democrats on other message boards.  Here on this board, the objections I see to Sarah Palin are not arising because she is inexperienced, popular, or female, but because her brief career appears to be an unbroken string of failed policies, personal corruption, and blatant, inveterate dishonesty.  Are people worried about her possible ascension to one of our government's highest offices?  You bet.  Is that concern unjustified?  After eight years under a virtually identical administration, I don't believe so.

Quote from: YellowKing
You took it *way* too personally. My comments were not meant as insults, and they were certainly not meant as insults directed specifically at you. It was a simple comment borne out of amusement on my part at what I felt was chaotic behavior by the Democrats to negate Palin's influence on the election. After all, I highly doubt had Obama been leading comfortably in the polls and Palin had given the Republicans no worthy post-convention bounce, that the Dems would be nearly as forceful and frenetic in attacking her and her record. Am I wrong?

I can't say that you're wrong, but I do disagree.  Sarah Palin would have been a small story if she'd joined the likes of Phil Gramm as a member of McCain's campaign staff.  As a surprise vice presidential selection, though, she's going to receive a lot of attention no matter how the polls move.

Quote from: YellowKing
To be quite honest, I pay little heed to who posts what. I tend to respond to posts for their content, not their poster, and am certainly not interested in getting personal with any members on this board.

I think it's important to take note of how individual posters are presenting themselves because, although people might be ideologically aligned in their beliefs, those beliefs are only as good as the facts they can use to back them up.

I suspect you wouldn't like it much if I quoted one of your posts and then wrote, "Wow, you guys will stoop to any level of personal attacks just to avoid talking about real issues!" in reference to something cheeba said.  You and msduncan may be ideologically similar to cheeba and brettmcd, but you're operating on a completely different level of discourse and it wouldn't be fair for me to conflate their behavior with yours.

*My* opposition to Sarah Palin is not hysterical or irrational.  It is based on the position that a candidate who is running in direct opposition to every aspect of her own established record is not a trustworthy person suitable for high office.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position more thoroughly.  I hope I've been clear in stating my own.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #457 on: September 20, 2008, 11:10:57 PM »

In an effort to shore up Palin's chances at the VP debate, the McCain campaign has forced changes in the debate format.

Quote
At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

and

Quote
McCain advisers said they were only somewhat concerned about Ms. Palin’s debating skills compared with those of Mr. Biden, who has served six terms in the Senate, or about his chances of tripping her up. Instead, they say, they wanted Ms. Palin to have opportunities to present Mr. McCain’s positions, rather than spending time talking about her own experience or playing defense.

Indeed - why would we want to hear about the experience of a candidate for Vice President?
Logged
Captain Caveman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1339


View Profile
« Reply #458 on: September 21, 2008, 02:49:45 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on September 20, 2008, 11:10:57 PM

In an effort to shore up Palin's chances at the VP debate, the McCain campaign has forced changes in the debate format.

Why would the Obama campaign agree to the change?
Logged
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3152



View Profile
« Reply #459 on: September 21, 2008, 03:05:45 AM »

Quote
I suspect you wouldn't like it much if I quoted one of your posts and then wrote, "Wow, you guys will stoop to any level of personal attacks just to avoid talking about real issues!" in reference to something cheeba said.  You and msduncan may be ideologically similar to cheeba and brettmcd, but you're operating on a completely different level of discourse and it wouldn't be fair for me to conflate their behavior with yours.

No, not really. Obviously I take this forum a lot less seriously than you do.
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 3633


View Profile
« Reply #460 on: September 21, 2008, 03:23:58 AM »

Quote from: YellowKing on September 21, 2008, 03:05:45 AM

No, not really. Obviously I take this forum a lot less seriously than you do.

I don't think that treating other people as individuals and weighing their thoughts and opinions appropriately is a matter of taking the forum seriously.  That seems to me like a matter of common courtesy.

-Autistic Angel

Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #461 on: September 21, 2008, 03:29:02 AM »

Quote from: Autistic Angel on September 21, 2008, 03:23:58 AM

I don't think that treating other people as individuals and weighing their thoughts and opinions appropriately is a matter of taking the forum seriously.  That seems to me like a matter of common courtesy.
When you get your panties in a bunch over being told your panties are in a bunch, then yes, you take this forum WAY too seriously.

Big part of the problem with this forum is all the panties all bunched up.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 03:31:37 AM by cheeba » Logged
Alefroth
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 690



View Profile
« Reply #462 on: September 21, 2008, 04:07:37 AM »

Quote from: cheeba on September 21, 2008, 03:29:02 AM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on September 21, 2008, 03:23:58 AM

I don't think that treating other people as individuals and weighing their thoughts and opinions appropriately is a matter of taking the forum seriously.  That seems to me like a matter of common courtesy.
When you get your panties in a bunch over being told your panties are in a bunch, then yes, you take this forum WAY too seriously.

Big part of the problem with this forum is all the panties all bunched up.

God you're tiring.

You throw a tantrum because someone says your arguments are dumb, yet you've got no problem telling people their panties are in a bunch, or they have their head up someone's ass.

Wait, don't tell me. You were being sarcastic and I have no sense of humor. That's how it goes, right?

Ale

Logged
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #463 on: September 21, 2008, 04:36:49 AM »

Quote from: Alefroth on September 21, 2008, 04:07:37 AM

God you're tiring.
See, this is how this shit gets started. I've not said a thing about you, have I?
Quote
You throw a tantrum because someone says your arguments are dumb
Wha?
Quote
yet you've got no problem telling people their panties are in a bunch, or they have their head up someone's ass. Wait, don't tell me. You were being sarcastic and I have no sense of humor. That's how it goes, right?
If you find "don't get your panties in the bunch" to be an insult, then yes, you absolutely need a sense of humor.

This has gotten out of hand. I tell ya what, and this is to everyone: if you don't insult me, I won't insult you. If you're not condescending to me, I won't be condescending to you. If you don't turn the subject to me, I won't turn it to you. Everyone's on a clean slate, past insults are forgiven, and I sincerely apologize to anyone who has been insulted by my words.

Now can we get back on topic?
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 04:59:44 AM by cheeba » Logged
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3152



View Profile
« Reply #464 on: September 22, 2008, 12:19:23 AM »

Quote
I don't think that treating other people as individuals and weighing their thoughts and opinions appropriately is a matter of taking the forum seriously.  That seems to me like a matter of common courtesy.

Edit - I had a response to this but I'm going to be the good guy and stop this conversation here. Back on topic, please.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 12:22:08 AM by YellowKing » Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 3633


View Profile
« Reply #465 on: September 22, 2008, 02:30:24 AM »

Quote from: YellowKing
Back on topic, please.

Okay.  Since I just explained in some detail the problems I have have Sarah Palin's terrible record and habitual dishonesty, I'm interested to hear some of the reasons why you might think she's an acceptable candidate.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #466 on: September 22, 2008, 04:23:34 PM »

Whether or not YellowKing decides to elaborate on his reasons for championing La Barracuda, there's a new NYT/CBS poll out that surveyed the qualities that peoples liked about Palin:

52.  Regardless of how you intend to vote, what do you like MOST about Sarah Palin?

Outspoken - 7%
Female - 7%
Fighter - 5%
Fresh Face - 5%
Easy to relate to - 4%
Understands - 4%
Honest - 4%
Like her - 3%
Intelligent - 2%
Working mom - 2%
Family - 2%
Everything - 1%
Nothing - 21%
Other - 15%
DK/NA - 18%

For the opposite question, that of what the person liked least about Palin, the peak quality was "Not Experienced" at 15%.

65% of respondents thought that Biden was qualified to be President if Obama were incapacitated, while 62% were concerned that Palin wasn't qualified.
Logged
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3152



View Profile
« Reply #467 on: September 22, 2008, 08:56:30 PM »

I'm a little confused why I'm being painted as some big Palin fan, to the point I should have to defend her. I went back and read every post I've posted in this thread. I expressed my enthusiasm of the pick *from a strategic standpoint*, and I have pointed out the hypocrisy of the "no experience" argument, but nowhere have I denied that she is inexperienced.

Here's a quote from one of my posts:

Quote
I am OK with Palin more because she is the bottom of the ticket. I don't place a lot of stock in VP picks, other than as ticket balancers to win elections. The VP choice has never played any role in my voting decisions. Palin is not my ideal choice; I would have actually preferred Lieberman. However, I think the attacks against Palin are a bit hypocritical, and that's why I have been defending her. It's not out of any great love for her, because like most Americans I know very little about her at this point.

So if you're asking me to give reasons why she's an acceptable candidate, then I don't really know what to say. I've explicitly said she's not my ideal candidate. I've also explicitly said she doesn't have any impact on my vote as the bottom of the ticket.
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #468 on: September 22, 2008, 09:08:48 PM »

So, if John McCain is elected President and cannot fulfill his term in office, do you think Sarah Palin would be qualified to serve as President, or would you be concerned about her?
Logged
YellowKing
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3152



View Profile
« Reply #469 on: September 22, 2008, 10:15:43 PM »

Quote
So, if John McCain is elected President and cannot fulfill his term in office, do you think Sarah Palin would be qualified to serve as President, or would you be concerned about her?

Of course I would, but I'm casting my vote for President and not Vice President. And I'm basing that vote on current reality, not conjecture on what may or may not happen. I'm just as concerned with Obama's experience, or lack thereof.
Logged
Canuck
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5485


I live in Japan


View Profile
« Reply #470 on: September 22, 2008, 11:15:14 PM »

At least Obama knows who the president of Spain is. (or at least I hope he does).
Logged
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #471 on: September 22, 2008, 11:19:53 PM »

Quote from: Canuck on September 22, 2008, 11:15:14 PM

At least Obama knows who the president of Spain is. (or at least I hope he does).

It turns out that he does.  To be fair, Palin may know who the Prime Minister of Spain is (given that this is the VP thread... slywink).  She's apparently going to meet with Henry Kissinger and Hamid Karzai at the UN.  I'm really curious about what the hell they're going to have to talk about.
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #472 on: September 23, 2008, 04:38:26 AM »

Quote from: Brendan on September 22, 2008, 09:08:48 PM

So, if John McCain is elected President and cannot fulfill his term in office, do you think Sarah Palin would be qualified to serve as President, or would you be concerned about her?

Should one be more worried more about the boss, the one who is actually in charge and their level of experience?    Or the assistant, the number 2 person who may never become the boss?
Logged
Autistic Angel
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 3633


View Profile
« Reply #473 on: September 23, 2008, 03:37:49 PM »

Quote from: brettmcd
Should one be more worried more about the boss, the one who is actually in charge and their level of experience?    Or the assistant, the number 2 person who may never become the boss?

In this case, the boss' selection reveals something about his judgment.  John McCain was (theoretically) free to pick any number of Republicans, including a number of *actual* reformers who have distinguished themselves by standing up to the Bush administration and supporting McCain on various bipartisan compromises.  One of the other Republicans in the "Gang of 14" that saved the Republican party by derailing the nuclear option, for example.

Instead, he chose Sarah Palin.

Vice Presidents do not hang upside down in a closet for four year periods, waking up only when a tie vote occurs in the senate.  If Dick Cheney has taught this country anything, it's that the position matters.

I cannot envision any standard of character or accomplishment by which Sarah Palin could be considered suitable for the position of Vice President of the United States.  John McCain not only chose someone who, by his own definition, was grossly inexperienced for the job, but someone who comes pre-packaged with her own policy failures, ethics scandal, and rampant dishonesty...and he dares to claim she represents "Change."

I don't know that the selection of running mate can ever really help a presidential candidate, but a lousy choice can certainly hurt.  In this instance, McCain's choice reveals that he puts no stock whatsoever in the qualifications or temperament of the people in his administration.

-Autistic Angel
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #474 on: September 23, 2008, 04:32:11 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on September 21, 2008, 03:29:02 AM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on September 21, 2008, 03:23:58 AM

I don't think that treating other people as individuals and weighing their thoughts and opinions appropriately is a matter of taking the forum seriously.  That seems to me like a matter of common courtesy.
When you get your panties in a bunch over being told your panties are in a bunch, then yes, you take this forum WAY too seriously.

Big part of the problem with this forum is all the panties all bunched up.

What we need in this forum is a panty raid.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #475 on: September 23, 2008, 04:34:10 PM »

Quote from: YellowKing on September 22, 2008, 10:15:43 PM

Quote
So, if John McCain is elected President and cannot fulfill his term in office, do you think Sarah Palin would be qualified to serve as President, or would you be concerned about her?

Of course I would, but I'm casting my vote for President and not Vice President. And I'm basing that vote on current reality, not conjecture on what may or may not happen. I'm just as concerned with Obama's experience, or lack thereof.

Ditto.   I don't vote based on who the VP is.    If I did, I would never have been a big fan of Reagan.
Logged
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21075



View Profile WWW
« Reply #476 on: September 23, 2008, 05:40:12 PM »

Quote from: msduncan on September 23, 2008, 04:34:10 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on September 22, 2008, 10:15:43 PM

Quote
So, if John McCain is elected President and cannot fulfill his term in office, do you think Sarah Palin would be qualified to serve as President, or would you be concerned about her?

Of course I would, but I'm casting my vote for President and not Vice President. And I'm basing that vote on current reality, not conjecture on what may or may not happen. I'm just as concerned with Obama's experience, or lack thereof.

Ditto.   I don't vote based on who the VP is.    If I did, I would never have been a big fan of Reagan.

Funny you mention - didn't Regan catch a bullet and almost put his VP into play?  You can't count out the VP at any stage in the game - they are part of the package.
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
gellar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8992


I'm a dolphin!


View Profile
« Reply #477 on: September 23, 2008, 05:45:16 PM »

You know, in reading a lot of the political debate here and elsewhere, it's really strengthened my belief that for 90% of voters, the election is a large practice in cognitive dissonance.  Nearly done by the 'chosen candidate' is going to sway one's opinion the other way and the entire time is spent justifying the decision that your choice is the right one.  By the same token no argument, rational or otherwise, by the other side is going to convince any of the opposition.

Basically - we believe what we want to believe because we want to believe it.

gellar
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #478 on: September 23, 2008, 06:17:28 PM »

Quote from: Knightshade Dragon on September 23, 2008, 05:40:12 PM

Quote from: msduncan on September 23, 2008, 04:34:10 PM

Quote from: YellowKing on September 22, 2008, 10:15:43 PM

Quote
So, if John McCain is elected President and cannot fulfill his term in office, do you think Sarah Palin would be qualified to serve as President, or would you be concerned about her?

Of course I would, but I'm casting my vote for President and not Vice President. And I'm basing that vote on current reality, not conjecture on what may or may not happen. I'm just as concerned with Obama's experience, or lack thereof.

Ditto.   I don't vote based on who the VP is.    If I did, I would never have been a big fan of Reagan.

Funny you mention - didn't Regan catch a bullet and almost put his VP into play?  You can't count out the VP at any stage in the game - they are part of the package.

But to ignore the lack of experience of the head man of one ticket, to continually focus on the lack of experience of the 2nd person on the other ticket just makes no sense.    The vp is part of the picture, but not nearly as big as the main person.
Logged
msduncan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2993


Roll Tide!!!!


View Profile
« Reply #479 on: September 23, 2008, 08:43:01 PM »

Quote from: gellar on September 23, 2008, 05:45:16 PM

You know, in reading a lot of the political debate here and elsewhere, it's really strengthened my belief that for 90% of voters, the election is a large practice in cognitive dissonance.  Nearly done by the 'chosen candidate' is going to sway one's opinion the other way and the entire time is spent justifying the decision that your choice is the right one.  By the same token no argument, rational or otherwise, by the other side is going to convince any of the opposition.

Basically - we believe what we want to believe because we want to believe it.

gellar

I think it's more of the fact that the two parties have moved so far away from each other on ideology that people just have to close their eyes and pull the lever for the one that matches what they think most closely.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.21 seconds with 102 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.063s, 2q)