Vice Presidential Debate

[maryjk]

I’ve never been a fan of Medved, so I personally discount what he has to say.

I have heard many republicans say that Biden’s actions were too agressive. This is a curious argument to make, considering that the last Vice President shot someone in the face!

So you see a hunting accident as a act of aggression? Really?

Biden was rude. It is really that simple.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have heard many republicans say that Biden’s actions were too agressive.

I have heard, and read, that many Democrats said that Biden’s actions were too aggressive.

 

[LisaA]

I’ve never been a fan of Medved, so I personally discount what he has to say.

I have heard many republicans say that Biden’s actions were too agressive. This is a curious argument to make, considering that the last Vice President shot someone in the face!

A rather specious argument don’t you think? It was a hunting accident and simply fodder for the late night comedy shows. Cheney however you may dislike him, has always presented a professional demeanor.

As to Medved, well if you are not a fan why would we think you had any respect for his statement? No need to reiterate the obvious.

As to Biden’s performance, it was not aggressive, it was rude, bizarre, disrespectful to his opponent, the moderator and the process, not to mention demeaning to the American people. This man is VP of the United States, he’s not playing Bozo at a 5 year old’s birthday party or re-enacting a Three Stooges episode. Aside from that his statements were false…lying or simply ignorant…which is better?

The polls did not move. The strategy backfired
Lisa

 

[Christopher68]

Your critique was pretty short Christopher. Perhaps you might have discoursed yourself at that higher level before critiquing and signing off.

The post I referenced was nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Nothing more needed to be said.

 

[He_Man]

I’ve never been a fan of Medved, so I personally discount what he has to say.

I have heard many republicans say that Biden’s actions were too agressive. This is a curious argument to make, considering that the last Vice President shot someone in the face!

If you think a hunting accident has anything to do with Biden’s behavior in a debate, you’re probably not a good person to be debating on the Internet.

And here we thought you wanted a serious, adult discussion.

There are lots of websites where you can post your .gifs of anti-Cheney propaganda. Have you tried them yet?

 

[He_Man]

The post I referenced was nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Nothing more needed to be said.

Then you compared a debate to a hunting accident. You kind of lost the high ground, as well as any train of logic, when you did that.

The two literally have NOTHING to do with one another.

Soooooo to recap for you kids at home, here are explanations of Biden’s debate performance:

1) Ryan deserved it because he was lying (the “Deceit” argument)
2) Ryan deserved it because his policies are horrendous (the “Ryan stinks” argument)
3) Ryan deserved it because Romney was “aggressive” with Obama. (the “Romney did it too” argument
4) Biden was trying to be SO over-the-top that Obama looks better in tomorrow’s debate (the “Contrast helps” argument)
5) Biden wasn’t acting like a boorish, arrogant person *(the “denial of reality” argument, *or the “I have no manners myself” argument)
6) Biden was aggressive sure, but Cheney shot someone in a hunting accident! (the “if you think excuses 1-5 stink, wait til you see excuse 6!” argument.)

 

[Dawnia]

I’ve never been a fan of Medved, so I personally discount what he has to say.

I have heard many republicans say that Biden’s actions were too agressive. This is a curious argument to make, considering that the last Vice President shot someone in the face!

I’m not a big fan of Cheney and certainly wouldn’t give the man a rifle or shotgun (or slingshot for that matter)…his stupidity in hunting is no where comparable to Biden’s rudeness at a public “job interview”.

 

[Erich]

Trying to keep up with this thread is a challenge… every time I turn around, it seems, a few more pages of posts get added!

The issue wasn’t “rammed down the country’s throat.” It was passed lawfully by democratically elected President and Congress who made no secret about their intentions during the election.

Obamacare was “rammed down the country’s throat.”

The Republicans (and some Democrats) opposed Obamacare (and the Stimulus) BECAUSE IT WAS A BAD PIECE OF LEGISLATION. Somehow this meme has developed that because Mitch McConnell said his job was to get Obama out of office (as is the case with the opposition) that Republicans opposed poor legislation out of spite. Obamacare is a BAD BILL. It was shoved through with bribes and special back room deals, with false assurances that abortion wouldn’t be a part of it, and when Scott Brown was elected, using some questionable tactics.

The Obamacare vote was bipartisan only in opposition. The vote was nothing like the bipartisan accomplishments of yore, despite Democrats’ repeated references to their coveted entitlement masterpieces that, by the way, are headed for insolvency.

In fact, the 219-212 vote was bipartisan — in opposition, with 34 Democrats joining every single Republican in voting against the bill.

Leaving bipartisanship to the wayside, Democrats relied on their 253-178 majority to pass the bill that Republicans denounce as allowing the federal government to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

Not exactly the way it was in the days of yore. When Social Security passed in 1935, the vote was 372-33, with 77 Republicans crossing party lines to vote yes. In 1965, when Medicare passed, the vote was 313-115, with 65 Republicans joining Democrats.

And, a calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960’s civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by the left wing Democrats for obvious reasons.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I’m not a big fan of Cheney and certainly wouldn’t give the man a rifle or shotgun (or slingshot for that matter)…his stupidity in hunting is no where comparable to Biden’s rudeness at a public “job interview”.

It is safer to go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving with Ted Kennedy (God rest his soul)!.

 

[7_Sorrows]

It is safer to go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving with Ted Kennedy (God rest his soul)!.

i have to remember that one!!!

i am joining this thread late and have not read all of the posts. i think ryan won the debate and biden’s performance was juvenile. his sneering and condescending attitude throughout the debate and that grin were really putting me off.

the next presidential debate is tomorrow night.

romney/ryan show class and maturity throughout their debates. as biden is the sitting vice president, i found his behavior appalling.

 

[CaptFun]

The post I referenced was nothing more than an ad hominem attack. Nothing more needed to be said.

Your call Christopher. You probably have done it since but elsewhere since that was your stated value. :compcoff: - (a higher level of discourse than a piercing critique of Biden by a writer, quoted by Gingrich, quoted by a poster here. I only half-agreed with Christopher and defended the poster to a degree).

Nothing more needed to be said - of course (and I meant it not as a critique so much as an encouragement to you to have written a paragraph or a sentence in that higher plane to punctuate the kind of thing you were looking for. At the PERFECT time and place (since you had our attention - in my opinion).

But it may just be a personality thing. I have a broad view that sees unity in things that might seem like an abrupt change of subject … or “off topic” to others - and be misunderstood (too?).

Some folks deal with one thing at a time rather than my “Communications Major” stringing ideas together like popcorn (on a Christmas tree) sort of approach. :christmastree1: - “I see a connection! Let me tell you about it - all at once!”

Ad hominem attacks DO generally indicate a lack of substantial evidence on the part of those who make them.

(Ad hominem = Latin for “to the man” - a logical emotion-based fallacy, that all to often “works” - legitimacy notwithstanding.) :sad_yes: When a behavior or issue is targeted, and not the person - it becomes less clear that an impassioned critique with strong language is necessarily ad hominem. I will re-read the posting in question (promise).

I may learn from your brevity even as I encourage you expand a bit Christopher. :blushing:

Nuff said (finally, huh?) .

 

[CaptFun]

Then you compared a debate to a hunting accident. You kind of lost the high ground, as well as any train of logic, when you did that.

The two literally have NOTHING to do with one another.

Soooooo to recap for you kids at home, here are explanations of Biden’s debate performance:

1) Ryan deserved it because he was lying (the “Deceit” argument)
2) Ryan deserved it because his policies are horrendous (the “Ryan stinks” argument)
3) Ryan deserved it because Romney was “aggressive” with Obama. (the “Romney did it too” argument
4) Biden was trying to be SO over-the-top that Obama looks better in tomorrow’s debate (the “Contrast helps” argument)
5) Biden wasn’t acting like a boorish, arrogant person *(the “denial of reality” argument, *or the “I have no manners myself” argument)
6) Biden was aggressive sure, but Cheney shot someone in a hunting accident! (the “if you think excuses 1-5 stink, wait til you see excuse 6!” argument.)

Enjoyed your Kiddie recap He-man. The main stream media has struck that pose to “us” for years. “Here’s what you REALLY just saw …” post-event “expert” commentators are familiar to us all.

Yours recaps are different (somehow) though.

*** Incisive analysis! ***< or is it that I tend to agree with you a lot? :dancing: npatrol: - * “Captain Fun - over and out!”
*

 

[jwinch2]

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ‘s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

 

[qui_est_ce]

Wow, use his own words against him. He sure was quick to criticize.

 

[CaptFun]

“Heeeeeeeere’s Johnny!”

How about giving the moderator ability to turn off the microphones?
In other words, some teeth.

You reminded me of THIS moment. When a potential (then successful) candidate for leader of the “free world” stood up to “the teeth” and showed he would not easily be intimidated. Many think this is where Reagan passed up George H.W. Bush as the leading GOP candidate for President in the the 1980 Primaries.

When you are “RIGHT” (as in morally so - not just politically ‘Right’) don’t let yourself be “moderated” into insignificance. Stand UP and LEAD.

youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE < Reagan: “I’m PAYING for this microphone!”

google.com/imgres?q=Reagan+debates+Bush+photo+1980+primary&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1440&bih=797&tbm=isch&tbnid=Eb1KZCp3NbJFHM:&imgrefurl=http://willrabbe.com/microblog/2010/12/6/the-tax-debate-circa-1980.html&docid=vGZME6A7yS2YYM&imgurl=http://willrabbe.com/storage/ReagBushDebatePhoto.jpg%253F__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION%253D1291645783199&w=519&h=349&ei=7HJ8UKXqDse62gXSyoHwCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=505&vpy=94&dur=1304&hovh=184&hovw=274&tx=141&ty=114&sig=106276381222808775002&page=1&tbnh=137&tbnw=196&start=0&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:74 < photo of Bush Sr. and Reagan when they opposed each other at the Nashua, NH “microphone incident” debate.

Since I “dinged” GHW Bush slightly, here was HIS moment of standing strong against a media person with TEETH. Bush’s insistence that this 1988 CBS “campaign interview” be LIVE evened up the playing field - in itself showing he could negotiate a good deal for himself (and maybe America when negotiating with hostile powers).

youtube.com/watch?v=FqwQw3THRvU < Bush’s turning the tables on Rather at 6:40 on this clip was television history. Not as big as the incident he recalled (Rather walking off of a live show and leaving CBS with “dead air” in one of TVs most famous “goofs”) - but a masterful parry of Rather’s insistent focus on the Iran-Contra affair and
a thrust at CBS’s and Rather’s own credibility.

*Four years later GHW barely ran for re-election it seemed. The passion and fire he showed here were replaced by a sort of “gentlemanly ethic” that it is unseemly to toot your own horn or campaign for RE-ELECTION as you ought to be just doing the job instead of running around fundraising andsoforth. < A losing recipe as it turned out. Unlike his sparring with Rather here, it seemed (to me at least) that Bill Clinton ran almost unopposed. Here in California in 1992 President Bush barely ran - conceding the state for some reason (polling?). And since then the biggest state in the union has been irrelevant, considered a non-swing state.

Anyway Michael Mayo, thanks for that subtopic. It’s one to ponder. A fawning media doesn’t check or balance; a hostile media isn’t fair and balanced. A deferential leader can look weak, an aggressive one can look scary. Yet viewing our elective candidates via the prism of the mass media is what we’ve got. Prism’s can both distort and make things prettier than they really are though so … caveat emptor! (Latin = Let the buyer beware)*

 

[mary_bobo]

I’ve never been a fan of Medved, so I personally discount what he has to say.

I have heard many republicans say that Biden’s actions were too agressive. This is a curious argument to make, considering that the last Vice President shot someone in the face!

Big difference here. Cheney’s was an accident, Biden’s was deliberate and juvenile, not to mention classless and beneath the Vice President of the US.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

*Obama Campaign: Biden Is Right, Catholic Bishops Are Wrong
By Terence P. Jeffrey
October 15, 2012
Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey’s posts

(CNSNews.com) - In the face of a statement that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued Friday saying that Vice President Joe Biden had spoken falsely when he said no Catholic institution would be required under an Obamacare regulation to “refer,” “pay for” or “be a vehicle” for someone to get contraception, President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign said it is standing by what Biden said.

“Clo Ewing, an Obama campaign spokeswoman, stood by Biden’s statement, and criticized Ryan and running mate Mitt Romney for using the issue as a ‘political football,’” said a Religion News Service story published online Saturday by the Washington Post.

“President Obama and Vice President Biden believe standing up for women’s health and respecting religious liberties are not mutually exclusive, and they are committed to upholding both principles,” Obama campaign spokewomen Ewing said in a statement to Religion News Service.** “As it stands, no religious institution will have to refer, provide, or pay for contraception.”***

Am I missing something?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Obama Campaign: Biden Is Right, Catholic Bishops Are Wrong
By Terence P. Jeffrey
October 15, 2012
Subscribe to Terence P. Jeffrey’s posts

(CNSNews.com) - In the face of a statement that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued Friday saying that Vice President Joe Biden had spoken falsely when he said no Catholic institution would be required under an Obamacare regulation to “refer,” “pay for” or “be a vehicle” for someone to get contraception, President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign said it is standing by what Biden said.

“Clo Ewing, an Obama campaign spokeswoman, stood by Biden’s statement, and criticized Ryan and running mate Mitt Romney for using the issue as a ‘political football,’” said a Religion News Service story published online Saturday by the Washington Post.

“President Obama and Vice President Biden believe standing up for women’s health and respecting religious liberties are not mutually exclusive, and they are committed to upholding both principles,” Obama campaign spokewomen Ewing said in a statement to Religion News Service.** “As it stands, no religious institution will have to refer, provide, or pay for contraception.”**

Am I missing something?

Nope. The hubris is unbelievable. Even from a strictly secular campaign viewpoint, why would you thumb your nose at 25(ish)% of the electorate?

As for me, message received Obama/Biden. I appreciate your honesty, while condemning your stance on life.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Nope. The hubris is unbelievable. Even from a strictly secular campaign viewpoint, why would you thumb your nose at 25(ish)% of the electorate?

As for me, message received Obama/Biden. I appreciate your honesty, while condemning your stance on life.

I’m amazed at the hubris of the Obama campaign, I guess we should ignore the tens of lawsuits in federal courts throughout America…

 

[IbnFiktur]

Nope. The hubris is unbelievable. Even from a strictly secular campaign viewpoint, why would you thumb your nose at 25(ish)% of the electorate?

It’s a good political move, since most of that 25% don’t know or don’t care that they’re being snubbed. A significant chunk probably agree with him. If Catholics were a uniformly principled voting block, this country would look ENTIRELY different. Unfortunately that’s not the case, and it’s not likely to be anytime soon.