Taking bets, placing odds on the VP debate...

#51
#51
hohenfelsvol said:
That's your argument. Wow.
Click to expand...


You really believe Biden would actually defend the idea that Roosevelt was president in 1929?

Look, Biden is an idiot when we speaks. This is a far cry from actually believing and defending the stupid things he says as actual reality.
 
#52
#52
rjd970 said:
You really believe Biden would actually defend the idea that Roosevelt was president in 1929?

Look, Biden is an idiot when we speaks. This is a far cry from actually believing and defending the stupid things he says as actual reality.
Click to expand...

In the end..... I really don't think there is much difference between either VP.
 
#53
#53
OrangeEmpire said:
Something in my gut says that is a major reach with Biden.

:hi:
Click to expand...

Something in my gut says Palin doesn't really believe where she lives is a legitimate national security credential. But that doesn't mean my gut is right.
 
#54
#54
rjd970 said:
You really believe Biden would actually defend the idea that Roosevelt was president in 1929?

Look, Biden is an idiot when we speaks. This is a far cry from actually believing and defending the stupid things he says as actual reality.
Click to expand...
That's just what we need a heartbeat away from being POTUS.

Someone who doesn't live full time in "actual reality".
 
#55
#55
I just believe it is hypocritical the way those who lean left try to paint Palin as an idiot while rationalizing those idiotic statements that Biden makes.

Is it that Biden knows he is saying stupid things or are there campaign people pointing out his stupid comments?

Actually I think it is simply a case of being nervous on Palin's part, both because she is new to this experience and because she is aware that there are many in the media who want her to insert her foot into her mouth.

Biden's problem is more of him being a seasoned, confident politician who thinks he knows what he is talking about but gets his facts mixed up. His people should try to keep him on point because it is obvious he needs to be scripted to an extent, winging it does not seem to work well for him.
 
#57
#57
KB5252 said:
I just believe it is hypocritical the way those who lean left try to paint Palin as an idiot while rationalizing those idiotic statements that Biden makes.

Is it that Biden knows he is saying stupid things or are there campaign people pointing out his stupid comments?

Actually I think it is simply a case of being nervous on Palin's part, both because she is new to this experience and because she is aware that there are many in the media who want her to insert her foot into her mouth.

Biden's problem is more of him being a seasoned, confident politician who thinks he knows what he is talking about but gets his facts mixed up. His people should try to keep him on point because it is obvious he needs to be scripted to an extent, winging it does not seem to work well for him.
Click to expand...

I have to mention this again..... you are probably the most balanced poster in the politics forum.

:hi:
 
#58
#58
rjd970 said:
Look, Biden is an idiot when we speaks. This is a far cry from actually believing and defending the stupid things he says as actual reality.
Click to expand...

So when Obama says under his plan, 95% of Americans will pay LESS taxes eventhough he doesn't account for the impact of capital gains changes and other taxes is he being stupid, making a gaffe or lying.

Same when he says he pays for every dime of his spending initiatives with his tax plan.

Politicians use sound bytes and stick to them regardless of countervailing facts.
 
#59
#59
volinbham said:
So when Obama says under his plan, 95% of Americans will pay LESS taxes eventhough he doesn't account for the impact of capital gains changes and other taxes is he being stupid, making a gaffe or lying.

Same when he says he pays for every dime of his spending initiatives with his tax plan.

Politicians use sound bytes and stick to them regardless of countervailing facts.
Click to expand...

Wow, we actually got 4 pages without bringing up a comparison of Obama into a thread on VP's candidates.
 
#60
#60
rjd970 said:
Wow, we actually got 4 pages without bringing up a comparison of Obama into a thread on VP's candidates.
Click to expand...

Pick any politician you like. The example stands. Obama is telling a whopper with regard to his tax and spend plans but is not being called on it. When he is challenged on it he sticks to his story.

You're Biden/Palin comparison of one knows it's a mistake versus the other believing it is not a convincing one.
 
#61
#61
volinbham said:
Pick any politician you like. The example stands. Obama is telling a whopper with regard to his tax and spend plans but is not being called on it. When he is challenged on it he sticks to his story.

You're Biden/Palin comparison of one knows it's a mistake versus the other believing it is not a convincing one.
Click to expand...

That's a big surprise.

So let me get this straight, my argument isn't convincing, but it applies when you bring up Obama?

Obama will return the capital gains taxes back to what they were under Reagan and Clinton, allow a partial extension of the current Bush tax cuts, and significantly cut spending on the war in Iraq. We can debate the merits of these points, if they will work, if it will really work out to a tax cut for most Americans, etc....

...but it is a far cry from claiming national security credentials simply because you live in Alaska. We are on two different playing fields altogether here. There is no debating this claim by her. It is ridiculous, and any resemblance to an argument in support of it is lacking. This is a cut and dry statement made by her, and she defended it. At least with Obama's "lies" we can argue the assumptions and points of merit.
 
#62
#62
volinbham said:
Pick any politician you like. The example stands. Obama is telling a whopper with regard to his tax and spend plans but is not being called on it.
Click to expand...
there's the heartburn. Palin's being taken to task on ntional security credentials and newspaper reading because she answered wrong. Obama hsn't yet been killed for his tax lie and lack of economicor national security anything. He has neither and 0 exec experience, but it's not been hammered at all, except here.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#63
#63
rjd970 said:
That's a big surprise.

So let me get this straight, my argument isn't convincing, but it applies when you bring up Obama?

Obama will return the capital gains taxes back to what they were under Reagan and Clinton, allow a partial extension of the current Bush tax cuts, and significantly cut spending on the war in Iraq. We can debate the merits of these points, if they will work, if it will really work out to a tax cut for most Americans, etc....

...but it is a far cry from claiming national security credentials simply because you live in Alaska. We are on two different playing fields altogether here. There is no debating this claim by her. It is ridiculous, and any resemblance to an argument in support of it is lacking. This is a cut and dry statement made by her, and she defended it. At least with Obama's "lies" we can argue the assumptions and points of merit.
Click to expand...

You bet!

:)

:hi:

:dance2:
 
#65
#65
rjd970 said:
That's a big surprise.

So let me get this straight, my argument isn't convincing, but it applies when you bring up Obama?


I'm saying your argument is not convincing by showing how you'd have to apply it to Obama too it were convincing. Got it? She's staying on message for political reasons just as Obama is. To say her version is an indication she's too dumb to know she's wrong would imply he too has to be too dumb to know he's wrong about his tax/spend plans. So they're either both dumb or both making political statements in the face of facts.


Obama will return the capital gains taxes back to what they were under Reagan and Clinton, allow a partial extension of the current Bush tax cuts, and significantly cut spending on the war in Iraq. We can debate the merits of these points, if they will work, if it will really work out to a tax cut for most Americans, etc....

That's not the point - he is misrepresenting in 2 ways (whether or not you agree with his statement). 1) 95% will not pay lower taxes - that is only one part of his plan but other parts raise them. 2) he does not "pay for every dime" of his spending plans with his proposed tax plan. Both of these comments are facts but he ignores them to stay on political message. Is he too dumb to know he's wrong here?


...but it is a far cry from claiming national security credentials simply because you live in Alaska. We are on two different playing fields altogether here. There is no debating this claim by her. It is ridiculous, and any resemblance to an argument in support of it is lacking. This is a cut and dry statement made by her, and she defended it. At least with Obama's "lies" we can argue the assumptions and points of merit.

I still disagree with your original premise that she is too dumb to know what she's saying here. She's trying to make a political point. I'm quite sure she knows it's a flimsy argument.
Click to expand...

See quotes in your original message.
 
#66
#66
The Iraq funding savings is another lie from inexperience. He isn't going to save that money.
 
#68
#68
Volinbham,

I can agree philisophically with the premise of your post, while maybe not with some of its substance.

But I wholeheartedly disagree with this:

I still disagree with your original premise that she is too dumb to know what she's saying here. She's trying to make a political point. I'm quite sure she knows it's a flimsy argument.
Click to expand...

Maybe she does think it's flimsy, but what makes you think she doesn't see some merit to it? She has defended this at least once, and even McCain isn't going to touch it. There is every reason to believe she really thinks this is the case. After the Gibson interview I could at least entertain the argument that it was just a joke in passing or what not (even though I never bought that). But the Couric interview was over the top, she actually defended it as legitimate. Putin flying over Alaska and she keeps an eye on him? Come on.
 
#69
#69
rjd970 said:
Maybe she does think it's flimsy, but what makes you think she doesn't see some merit to it? She has defended this at least once, and even McCain isn't going to touch it. There is every reason to believe she really thinks this is the case.
Click to expand...
Then there is every reason to believe that Obama is too stupid to understand that his tax / economic plan is impossible to achieve, which is VBH's point. You don't get to have it both ways.

More troubling is that Obama's lie is about something material to all of us. Whether living near Russia matters to national security credentials is nothing but a media driven esoteric debate.
 
#71
#71
rjd970 said:
Volinbham,

I can agree philisophically with the premise of your post, while maybe not with some of its substance.

But I wholeheartedly disagree with this:



Maybe she does think it's flimsy, but what makes you think she doesn't see some merit to it? She has defended this at least once, and even McCain isn't going to touch it. There is every reason to believe she really thinks this is the case. After the Gibson interview I could at least entertain the argument that it was just a joke in passing or what not (even though I never bought that). But the Couric interview was over the top, she actually defended it as legitimate. Putin flying over Alaska and she keeps an eye on him? Come on.
Click to expand...

Hello it is a Macguffin.............
 
#72
#72
rjd970 said:
Volinbham,

I can agree philisophically with the premise of your post, while maybe not with some of its substance.

But I wholeheartedly disagree with this:



Maybe she does think it's flimsy, but what makes you think she doesn't see some merit to it? She has defended this at least once, and even McCain isn't going to touch it. There is every reason to believe she really thinks this is the case. After the Gibson interview I could at least entertain the argument that it was just a joke in passing or what not (even though I never bought that). But the Couric interview was over the top, she actually defended it as legitimate. Putin flying over Alaska and she keeps an eye on him? Come on.
Click to expand...

Again, apply the same standard to Obama. He knows his facts don't add up but he continually repeats them on the trail and when questioned. Just because her argument is much weaker doesn't mean she doesn't see through it herself.

She's damned either way she goes so she's doing what most politicians do - stick to your story until you absolutely have to change it.
 
#73
#73
rjd970 said:
All I said is he was going to cut the spending, and I am pretty sure that is all he has said too.
Click to expand...
no he didn't. He said he was bringing the troops home, until he changed it.

Cutting spending in Iraq has nothing to do with total global military expenditures. If he listens to his harpies, complaining that we should be focused in Afghanistan, then he'll spend the money there. If he cuts the spending altogether, he's on the Jimmy Carter trail for sure. I can't wait.
 
#74
#74
BigPapaVol said:
Then there is every reason to believe that Obama is too stupid to understand that his tax / economic plan is impossible to achieve, which is VBH's point. You don't get to have it both ways.

More troubling is that Obama's lie is about something material to all of us. Whether living near Russia matters to national security credentials is nothing but a media driven esoteric debate.
Click to expand...

Are you even reading this thread? This is two different arguments together. We can argue the merits of Obama economic policies, he has his assumptions, you have yours, etc. Can we really argue Palin's claim here? And I guess what national security credentials the VP has isn't material to us anymore?
 
#75
#75
rjd970 said:
Are you even reading this thread? This is two different arguments together. We can argue the merits of Obama economic policies, he has his assumptions, you have yours, etc. Can we really argue Palin's claim here? And I guess what national security credentials the VP has isn't material to us anymore?
Click to expand...

MacGuffin.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top