So, what did you think about the debate? (Let's leave everything else out of it)

[asta]

I was curious about the Constitutional powers of the vice-president also. It turns out, Gov. Palin is correct: the Constitution is bereft of specifics regarding the office of the VP. The President actually does have the power to do all sorts of stuff.

 

Constitution of the US: The Executive Branch

 

So... historically, in the aggregate, the country has made out pretty well, leadership-wise. It must be that whole checks and balances thing... :glare:

 

 

asta

[Erica in PA]

:iagree:

 

I was one of the first ones posting here, after the first debate, pointing out that McCain wasn't looking at Obama when he was speaking (I thought it was rude). I was told by countless posters that it wasn't proper debating technique. And, not having any experience with 'debate protocol' before, I then understood and accepted that there was a reason for McCain to have kept his eyes focused on the moderator and/or audience.

 

But now Palin's considered "folksy" and "down-to-earth", both here and in the media's post-debate comments, for using terms like "Joe Six Pack" and making comments like "I've only been at this for 5 weeks" and no one's jumping on her.

 

I agree that there's a huge doublestandard. If Biden had tried the same tactic (which I'm sure he wouldn't -- that's what experience, both in debates and in politics, will teach you, and sometimes the hard way), he would be raked over the coals mercilessly. When she does it, it's more along the lines of "Oh, she's a newbie. She doesn't understand. She's appealing to the everyday American."

 

But can you link to a post where Obama was criticized for looking at McCain?? That is the assertion here, and I don't recall that at all. It was just stated that McCain wasn't doing anything wrong by not looking back-- that doesn't mean that Obama was wrong, and I dont' think anyone said otherwise.

 

Erica

[Laura R (FL)]

The idea that we can tackle global warming without knowing what causes it is ludicrous, imo.

 

I agree, but I heard something different in the debate. I didn't interpret what she said to mean that she didn't want to avoid the causes. I heard: Let's not argue about what the causes are, but move forward toward a solution and take care of the things we can control...carbon emissions, etc.

 

Some people (ahem :P) think that climate change is natural, cyclic, and man-made. Some of us aren't convinced it is all man-made. However, some of us think that moving in the direction of cleaning up our acts would be of benefit whether or not global warning exists. :D

[Jennifer3141]

I couldn't care less what accent Palin has, but I do care that she uses incorrect grammar. I think she sounds unprofessional, and I think she is doing it intentionally.

 

I've been wondering about that too. And if it is intentional, it's incredibly insulting to the American people.

 

Or she does it to be cute. And when we choose the person to be second in line for the most powerful position in the world, "cute" shouldn't be in the lexicon. This isn't a "Legally Blonde" people.

 

I wonder if she simply can't turn the sterotypical beauty queen crap off??

 

Jen

[Janet in Toronto]

You want suckage, Dawn? You should have watched the Canadian debate tonight.

 

Almost as exciting as watching grass grow. :tongue_smilie:

 

We Tivo'd the Canadian debate and watched the American one. It sounds like I don't need to use up an hour this afternoon watching it??

[Trivium Academy]

Don't faint on me, :svengo: but I liked Biden last night better than Palin. He made her seem so inexperienced and he was much more poised and confident in his answers. She was playing defense most of the debate and I could see her nervousness. I told dh (Obama supporter) that I would feel much better with a McCain/Biden ticket. Palin did good but she wasn't great, I felt like she was selling something the whole time and that doesn't garner respect from me.

 

I think both sides have their faults, like I told dh last night, but I prefer McCain's faults to Obama's at this point although Biden did make me reconsider my vote a little bit. I don't know whether to give Palin a break b/c she's a greenhorn on this level or be upset that McCain didn't choose Romney.

[Raini]

I've been wondering about that too. And if it is intentional, it's incredibly insulting to the American people.

 

Or she does it to be cute. And when we choose the person to be second in line for the most powerful position in the world, "cute" shouldn't be in the lexicon. This isn't a "Legally Blonde" people.

 

I wonder if she simply can't turn the sterotypical beauty queen crap off??

 

**************

 

I agree. It's a bummer to me, doncha know, that the first woman in office (potentially) would rely on cuteness, winking!, and 'street' talk to connect with us. I'd prefer she get there on substance. I'm not saying Palin has no substance...I'm saying I haven't seen evidence of it, and I'd like to. The beauty queen, cheerleading persona turns me completely off. The winking offends me.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Raini
boxes around quotes not showing up- trying to clarify quotes

[CAMom]

:iagree:

 

I was one of the first ones posting here, after the first debate, pointing out that McCain wasn't looking at Obama when he was speaking (I thought it was rude). I was told by countless posters that it wasn't proper debating technique. And, not having any experience with 'debate protocol' before, I then understood and accepted that there was a reason for McCain to have kept his eyes focused on the moderator and/or audience.

 

But now Palin's considered "folksy" and "down-to-earth", both here and in the media's post-debate comments, for using terms like "Joe Six Pack" and making comments like "I've only been at this for 5 weeks" and no one's jumping on her.

 

I agree that there's a huge doublestandard. If Biden had tried the same tactic (which I'm sure he wouldn't -- that's what experience, both in debates and in politics, will teach you, and sometimes the hard way), he would be raked over the coals mercilessly. When she does it, it's more along the lines of "Oh, she's a newbie. She doesn't understand. She's appealing to the everyday American."

 

I agree with the others who said that the deal was just that McCain was not being a jerk for not looking back. Although, personally, I didn't like that Obama kept calling him John. I also wanted to scream when Palin referred to Obama as Barack several times last night. No way is she familiar enough with him to be calling him by his first name. Have they even met?:glare:

 

Now, Biden did continually refer to McCain as John. This may very well be a double standar but that didn't bother me nearly as much. Why? Because I'm sure McCain and Biden are actually on a first name basis in real life. They've worked in the same place together for a very long time. They've earned the right to address each other by their first names.

 

My assessment of her asking to use his first name, looking directly at him, etc...I'm fairly certain that the McCain campaign listened to all of the negative feedback from the media and the people at large and discovered that his more "professional debate techniques" were offputting. So, they made the adjustment and told Palin to be more engaging.

 

I don't think that's a double standard. I just saw it as Obama and McCain using two totally different techniques (not that McCain was being a jerk, or even dishonest as was suggested by some for not looking at his opponent) and that the McCain campaign made the adjustment they thought they needed to make.

 

:)

[Mamagistra]

Truly frightening -- to us anyway. I'm curious what the more conservative members of the board think about it.

 

I consider myself to be very conservative (Constitutionally, that is), and those comments about the VP's job were absolutely frightening. I can't imagine that that was one of her talking points. :001_huh:

 

I whooped aloud when Biden said what he did about Cheney. :hurray:

[Mamagistra]

But you can get away with saying just about anything, as long as you wink! ;)

 

Man, oh man, you betcha! ;) ;) ;)

[Mama Lynx]

I was curious about the Constitutional powers of the vice-president also. It turns out, Gov. Palin is correct: the Constitution is bereft of specifics regarding the office of the VP. The President actually does have the power to do all sorts of stuff.

 

Constitution of the US: The Executive Branch

 

So... historically, in the aggregate, the country has made out pretty well, leadership-wise. It must be that whole checks and balances thing... :glare:

 

 

asta

 

If you look in Article I, the Vice President is specifically the President of the Senate. He or she only *votes* in the Senate in the case of a tie, but is always the President of the Senate. In recent years, that job hasn't really been done by the VP, which is why Sen. Biden thinks that the VP only presides over the Senate in the case of a tie.

[Melissa in FL]

It sounds like Minnesota to me.

 

Yasureyabetcha! ;)

 

Kelly,

that's what I always think!! LOL

Melissa

[threetreasurs]

Please don't stone me, but our family thought Palin winking at the camera a bit out of place.

 

I also thought she overplayed the mom card. Most candidates have children and are therefore parents. She is not unique in that role.

 

Last but not least, I think it quite proper to expect a VP or President to be above average<g>. So when she pulls out the Joe Six Pack line I cringe.:blush:

 

Just my personal take.

[Jumping In Puddles]

During the Couric interview, Palin came across as naive and not very versed in the issues - not because of gotcha journalism but because she didn't know the answers so she changed the subject.

 

She did that in the debate too (didn't answer economy question instead said she wanted to talk about energy) but no one called her on it. If she was absolutely pressed by the moderator or Biden to please, answer that question, I wonder what kind of answer we would have gotten.

 

Katie Couric would not let it pass. She asked once - subject changed/no answer, Couric asked again - same response from Palin, finally she said I'm going to ask you once again the question - to which Palin finally said "I don't know, I'll dig some up and get back to ya"

[Melissa in FL]

 

I felt that Biden was trying to make his answers seem more 'central' so as not to offend the majority of the American people..while he says he supports marriage between a man and a woman...."Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996."

 

McCain voted yea on the Defense of Marriage Act...so I have to ask, who supports marriage being held between a man and a woman.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, I don't think this is fair. Let me say I'm a Republican voting for McCain. I support a definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. I don't support the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act. I do think you can feel feel that way.

 

This is a very close issue to me as I have a SIL in a long term homosexual relationship. Her and I have talked about this a lot. I think marriage is between man and woman, but I think the legal documents out there that are suppose to protect these relationships don't work. There does need to be some sort of civil union to protect their rights. SIL has asked dh and I to interfere if she's ever in the hospital dying to make sure her partner is not denied visitation. She's very worried her mother would close the door on her wishes. This is not right. It's taking away SIL's last freedoms should something happen to her. Yes, they have gone to a lawyer and signed all the documents. But the bottom line is if her mother disagrees with what her partner wants to do, the hospital will send her partner down to the legal department in the hospital and deny her access until after it goes in front of a judge. It's just wrong.

 

All this to say: I don't think what Biden said contradicts how Obama voted. It's a difference on how they think the government should be involved in this issue.

Thanks

Melissa

[ma23peas]

Winks, Joe Sixpacks, Changing subjects, looking at Biden,

 

 

IF you look back at ALL those who detracted about Palin...less than 10% would have been on the issues...so you're telling me that those 4 items above are the factors by which you say someone won a debate? Oh MY GOODNESS!! IT's infuriating that our society is so judgmental and easily goes to personal flaw rather than talking about the SUBSTANCE of the debate...do you AGREE or DISAGREE with the issues? If we were to examine the most influential and successful executives in billion dollar industries, we surely would be able to find fault in their personal habits...but do they STAND for what YOU believe in and where you WANT this country to be headed?

 

I just wish those that pick on the superficial would take a moment to discuss the issues...those are too serious and important for us to ignore..I can ignore the winks/joe sixpacks/looking at Biden..but I CAN'T IGNORE where these candidates want to lead our country...how about more discussion on that!

 

Tara

[homeschool2boys]

I thought she did pretty well. I actually like the folksy talk, I feel like she represents someone like me, an average American from the Midwest. Biden did well too but he came off as a bit windy to me. It’s like half way through his comments I was bored and ready for him to cut it off. I don’t dislike him, but I felt no connection with him or his answers. It was like listening to yet another windy, life long, career politician. Like most of them, he does not represent me, and I doubt can even relate to a person like me. I did feel that Sarah Palin does represent someone like me, and I like that about her.

I also saw it as him being condescending to her. The way he would look over and smile while she was talking seemed like he was looking down on her to me. I didn’t take it as he was smiling because he was happy to hear what she was saying. I took it as he was looking down his nose and smiling as if to say she doesn’t know what she is talking about so I will just smile about what she is saying. It’s just my opinion.

[astrid]

Please don't stone me, but our family thought Palin winking at the camera a bit out of place.

 

I also thought she overplayed the mom card. Most candidates have children and are therefore parents. She is not unique in that role.

 

Last but not least, I think it quite proper to expect a VP or President to be above average<g>. So when she pulls out the Joe Six Pack line I cringe.:blush:

 

Just my personal take.

 

This is exactly how I feel. I don't find her mannerism "refreshing," I find it completely inappropriate for the position. Her mugging went way over the top. "Joe Six Pack" "Maverick" and "Hockey Mom" are just so overplayed.

 

astrid

[astrid]

Winks, Joe Sixpacks, Changing subjects, looking at Biden,

 

 

IF you look back at ALL those who detracted about Palin...less than 10% would have been on the issues...so you're telling me that those 4 items above are the factors by which you say someone won a debate? I just wish those that pick on the superficial would take a moment to discuss the issues...those are too serious and important for us to ignore..I can ignore the winks/joe sixpacks/looking at Biden..but I CAN'T IGNORE where these candidates want to lead our country...how about more discussion on that!

 

Tara

 

Well, unfortunately, all we saw of Palin were the winks and the mommy stuff. She never actually answered a question. She never presented facts. When asked about the single most important issue, the economy, she talked about energy. So though I really wanted to hear some substance, I didn't. And I didn't hear any substance in the Katie Couric interview, either. Really---- I WANT to know what her positions are, but I've yet to hear that. And I really am paying attention, but i"m just not seeing it.

 

astrid

[nmoira]

I was curious about the Constitutional powers of the vice-president also. It turns out, Gov. Palin is correct: the Constitution is bereft of specifics regarding the office of the VP. The President actually does have the power to do all sorts of stuff.

 

Constitution of the US: The Executive Branch

 

So... historically, in the aggregate, the country has made out pretty well, leadership-wise. It must be that whole checks and balances thing...

The problem with Palin's remarks is that she appears to accept Cheney's assertion that he's part of the legislative rather than the executive branch of government. He claims that because he's not part of the executive, his office is not subject to the same kind of record keeping requirement and inspection requirements as the President. Yet simultaneously, he argues executive privilege for things like requests to see who attended this meeting or that. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to imagine the potential abuses of this situation.

[threetreasurs]

Winks, Joe Sixpacks, Changing subjects, looking at Biden,

 

 

I just wish those that pick on the superficial would take a moment to discuss the issues...those are too serious and important for us to ignore..I can ignore the winks/joe sixpacks/looking at Biden..but I CAN'T IGNORE where these candidates want to lead our country...how about more discussion on that!

 

Tara

 

I am a very conservative pro life person. But I don't think it superficial to examine the image of someone who is in a position to someday be President of the United States - someone who will be our representative to the world.

 

Also, if McCain wanted Joe Lieberman - Not Prolife - and picked Palin when the Republican committee made it clear that Lieberman was not an option - how can we really trust him on this issue?

 

Just my feelings - but I am feeling sort of used. Am I supposed to just vote for anyone who says they are prolife? Am I not allowed to examine the person who will represent me?

 

How is it trivial to think that a flirty manner is inappropriate for the VP/potential President whose job in large part involves meeting with the heads of state of other countries?

[astrid]

I consider myself to be very conservative (Constitutionally, that is), and those comments about the VP's job were absolutely frightening. I can't imagine that that was one of her talking points. :001_huh:

 

I whooped aloud when Biden said what he did about Cheney. :hurray:

 

Me too. Those VP comments struck fear into my heart. Lovedd the Cheney comments.

 

astrid

[astrid]

I am a very conservative pro life person. But I don't think it superficial to examine the image of someone who is in a position to someday be President of the United States - someone who will be our representative to the world.

 

Also, if McCain wanted Joe Lieberman - Not Prolife - and picked Palin when the Republican committee made it clear that Lieberman was not an option - how can we really trust him on this issue?

 

Just my feelings - but I am feeling sort of used. Am I supposed to just vote for anyone who says they are prolife? Am I not allowed to examine the person who will represent me?

 

How is it trivial to think that a flirty manner is inappropriate for the VP/potential President whose job in large part involves meeting with the heads of state of other countries?

 

YES! Though I come down on the other side of the abortion issue, it could be anything--- the economy, foreign policy, energy, anything---- if McCain was so quick to switch his allegiance as he did with his move from Liebermann to Palin, is he REALLY living out his "Country First" motto? Or is he pandering?

 

Totally agree with you, Threetreasures!

 

astrid

Edited October 3, 2008 by astrid
added "I"

[ma23peas]

I'm sorry, I don't think this is fair. Let me say I'm a Republican voting for McCain. I support a definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. I don't support the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Defense of Marriage Act. I do think you can feel feel that way.

 

This is a very close issue to me as I have a SIL in a long term homosexual relationship. Her and I have talked about this a lot. I think marriage is between man and woman, but I think the legal documents out there that are suppose to protect these relationships don't work. There does need to be some sort of civil union to protect their rights. SIL has asked dh and I to interfere if she's ever in the hospital dying to make sure her partner is not denied visitation. She's very worried her mother would close the door on her wishes. This is not right. It's taking away SIL's last freedoms should something happen to her. Yes, they have gone to a lawyer and signed all the documents. But the bottom line is if her mother disagrees with what her partner wants to do, the hospital will send her partner down to the legal department in the hospital and deny her access until after it goes in front of a judge. It's just wrong.

 

All this to say: I don't think what Biden said contradicts how Obama voted. It's a difference on how they think the government should be involved in this issue.

Thanks

Melissa

 

 

You CAN defend the marriage protection act AND provide rights for loved ones to visit you in the hospital...it's just that the homosexual groups want to CHANGE the definition of marriage and want it to be recognized by all..when legislation is presented to give them broader rights and be allowed to visit in the hospital..they don't want that...they are ACTIVELY pushing to change the definition of marriage...plain and simple...each hospital can put together their own set of rules...many already do!

 

"Allina Hospitals, HCMC and Regions Hospital all allow gay partners to visit loved ones...."

 

So why do the gay groups push for legislation when there are other avenues to go to than attacking marriage..because ultimately they DO want the marriage definition to be included, it will give their agenda legitimization...it's kind of like they're screaming for the moon but really want the stars...they can have the moon and not be discriminated against but they can't have marriage...that's my position and I get ruffled when I see them claiming they don't have this right or that...

 

Tara

[NevadaRabbit]

I was one of the first ones posting here, after the first debate, pointing out that McCain wasn't looking at Obama when he was speaking (I thought it was rude). I was told by countless posters that it wasn't proper debating technique. And, not having any experience with 'debate protocol' before, I then understood and accepted that there was a reason for McCain to have kept his eyes focused on the moderator and/or audience.

 

But now Palin's considered "folksy" and "down-to-earth", both here and in the media's post-debate comments, for using terms like "Joe Six Pack" and making comments like "I've only been at this for 5 weeks" and no one's jumping on her.

 

I agree that there's a huge doublestandard. If Biden had tried the same tactic (which I'm sure he wouldn't -- that's what experience, both in debates and in politics, will teach you, and sometimes the hard way), he would be raked over the coals mercilessly. When she does it, it's more along the lines of "Oh, she's a newbie. She doesn't understand. She's appealing to the everyday American."

 

There are two different subjects there, though. Debate rules/procedures are one thing, and it is possible that McCain was adhering to standard debate protocol to address the moderator. McCain and Biden are the most experienced legislative debaters up there. Obama has had a couple years to prepare.

 

But Palin's folksiness is not a "tactic" - she really has only been at this for 5 weeks. Why would anyone jump on her for stating the fact? Why would Joe Biden try a tactic like I'm new at this and talk like it when it would indeed be a masquerade, a tactic, and get him raked over the coals? Palin is a newbie. She doesn't get inside-the-Beltway shenanigans. She is appealing to everyday Americans (some, not all), and that's no tactic, that's who she is.

[Haiku]

Am I supposed to just vote for anyone who says they are prolife? Am I not allowed to examine the person who will represent me?

 

 

I agree. I am pro-life. However, I tend to vote Democratic or third party. I am unaffiliated politically. I want to vote for a pro-life candidate, but I have to look at the total package. If someone is going to take our country in what I feel is the completely wrong direction and make choices that will devastate the ability of average Americans to prosper, I can't simply shrug my shoulders and say, "But at least he/she is pro-life." I know that the president can appoint Supreme Court judges that might affect Rv.W, but the power to change abortion laws does not rest directly with the president. However, there are very immediate and pressing issues that the president is much more directly in a position to affect, so I simply can't be a single-issue voter.

 

Tara

[dawn of ns]

You want suckage, Dawn? You should have watched the Canadian debate tonight.

 

Almost as exciting as watching grass grow. :tongue_smilie:

 

I actually switched to it and watched some. I was impressed by May and Layton and Duceppes. Thought Dion, who I truly adore came off weak and wanted to put my foot through my computer moniter (I found the live feed) everytime Harper was talking. But that's generally my response when I see him anyway.

 

It drives me crazy that no one seems to realize his speaking manner is cribbed from Mulroney. Now I liked Mulroney but I hate watching a rerun of him.

[astrid]

You CAN defend the marriage protection act AND provide rights for loved ones to visit you in the hospital...it's just that the homosexual groups want to CHANGE the definition of marriage and want it to be recognized by all..when legislation is presented to give them broader rights and be allowed to visit in the hospital..they don't want that...they are ACTIVELY pushing to change the definition of marriage...plain and simple...each hospital can put together their own set of rules...many already do!

 

"Allina Hospitals, HCMC and Regions Hospital all allow gay partners to visit loved ones...."

 

So why do the gay groups push for legislation when there are other avenues to go to than attacking marriage..because ultimately they DO want the marriage definition to be included, it will give their agenda legitimization...it's kind of like they're screaming for the moon but really want the stars...they can have the moon and not be discriminated against but they can't have marriage...that's my position and I get ruffled when I see them claiming they don't have this right or that...

 

Tara

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

astrid

[ma23peas]

Well, unfortunately, all we saw of Palin were the winks and the mommy stuff. She never actually answered a question. She never presented facts. When asked about the single most important issue, the economy, she talked about energy. So though I really wanted to hear some substance, I didn't. And I didn't hear any substance in the Katie Couric interview, either. Really---- I WANT to know what her positions are, but I've yet to hear that. And I really am paying attention, but i"m just not seeing it.

 

astrid

 

Nope, Astrid you weren't paying attention..perhaps because you were too distracted by her winks and mommy stuff...

 

1. 96% of Obama's voting record is among party lines

2. Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 94 times. Now, that's not what we need to create jobs and really bolster and heat up our economy

3. As mayor, every year I was in office I did reduce taxes. I eliminated personal property taxes and eliminated small business inventory taxes and as governor we suspended our state fuel tax.

4. you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category. So they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity.

5.An increased tax formula that Barack Obama is proposing in addition to nearly a trillion dollars in new spending that he's proposing is the backwards way of trying to grow our economy.

 

I'm just on page 4 of the 20 pages of transcripts for the debate...so the above statements hold no substance for you? I see a clear and distinct line between policy on the two sides...I'm sorry that you only saw winks and folksy statements...I listen a little more carefully to the 90% of the words than the less than 10% of body language and style...And, I believe she addressed the economy very thoroughly, you just didn't agree with her position so therefore it holds no value with you.

 

Tara

[Elaine]

Wow. Just wow.

 

astrid

 

What is this response supposed to mean? That you don't agree with it?

 

I find this type of comment incredibly rude.

[Elaine]

Nope, Astrid you weren't paying attention..perhaps because you were too distracted by her winks and mommy stuff...

 

1. 96% of Obama's voting record is among party lines

2. Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 94 times. Now, that's not what we need to create jobs and really bolster and heat up our economy

3. As mayor, every year I was in office I did reduce taxes. I eliminated personal property taxes and eliminated small business inventory taxes and as governor we suspended our state fuel tax.

4. you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category. So they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity.

5.An increased tax formula that Barack Obama is proposing in addition to nearly a trillion dollars in new spending that he's proposing is the backwards way of trying to grow our economy.

 

I'm just on page 4 of the 20 pages of transcripts for the debate...so the above statements hold no substance for you? I see a clear and distinct line between policy on the two sides...I'm sorry that you only saw winks and folksy statements...I listen a little more carefully to the 90% of the words than the less than 10% of body language and style...And, I believe she addressed the economy very thoroughly, you just didn't agree with her position so therefore it holds no value with you.

 

Tara

 

Man I wish I had rep! :hurray::hurray::hurray:

[dawn of ns]

You CAN defend the marriage protection act AND provide rights for loved ones to visit you in the hospital...it's just that the homosexual groups want to CHANGE the definition of marriage and want it to be recognized by all..when legislation is presented to give them broader rights and be allowed to visit in the hospital..they don't want that...they are ACTIVELY pushing to change the definition of marriage...plain and simple...each hospital can put together their own set of rules...many already do!

 

"Allina Hospitals, HCMC and Regions Hospital all allow gay partners to visit loved ones...."

 

That's not the issue. The hospitals can only dictate their visiting policies, they can't dictate spousal rights or interfere when a mother or other family decides to exclude a gay partner from any decisions about an ailing partners medical treatments because that gay partner has no spousal rights.

 

So why do the gay groups push for legislation when there are other avenues to go to than attacking marriage..because ultimately they DO want the marriage definition to be included, it will give their agenda legitimization...it's kind of like they're screaming for the moon but really want the stars...they can have the moon and not be discriminated against but they can't have marriage...that's my position and I get ruffled when I see them claiming they don't have this right or that...

 

I think this is something you should research. Your response seems to show a lack of understanding of existing spousal rights and the concerns gay partners have.

[Jumping In Puddles]

Man I wish I had rep! :hurray::hurray::hurray:

Then you are not going to like this post! :lol: but seriously, I'm glad we can have a civil discussion and I do very, very much respect what you have to say and we already know we disagree about politics.

 

 

 

Nope, Astrid you weren't paying attention..perhaps because you were too distracted by her winks and mommy stuff...

 

1. 96% of Obama's voting record is among party lines

2. Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 94 times. Now, that's not what we need to create jobs and really bolster and heat up our economy

3. As mayor, every year I was in office I did reduce taxes. I eliminated personal property taxes and eliminated small business inventory taxes and as governor we suspended our state fuel tax.

4. you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category. So they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity.

5.An increased tax formula that Barack Obama is proposing in addition to nearly a trillion dollars in new spending that he's proposing is the backwards way of trying to grow our economy.

 

 

1. Barack is not the one saying he is a maverick.

 

2. As biden pointed out, McCain had 477 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 477 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 477 times.

 

3. fact check:

For instance, she said: "As mayor, every year I was in office I did reduce taxes."

 

In fact, she oversaw a 35% increase in the operating budget of Wasilla, Alaska. What happened was this: Palin reworked the budget in part by decreasing the tax burden on city residents via the property tax -- which was indeed lowered -- and spreading the responsibility to residents outside the city by increasing the sales tax, to 2.5% from 2%.

 

4. Over 95% of small businesses in America make under 250,000.

 

5. Obama's tax plan favors the middle class. Obama's tax plan will see no increase if you make less than 250,000. Those in the top 1% will be paying more taxes but still not more than they were paying when Reagan was in office.

Edited October 3, 2008 by Jumping In Puddles

[cindyinTexas]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27001026/?GT1=43001

 

 

 

Biden reminded me of the business as usual, canned politics.

 

Palin reminds me of someone that I can relate to in the real world on the issues in Washington. Someone who started out normal 20 years ago with her husband.

 

What amazes me the most is we expect Palin to know as much as Biden. Biden has been in the Senate for over 1/2 of his life and he still got some of the info construed.

 

Now some are willing to vote for a Obama who needs on the job training. Biden criticizes Obama ad hitting McCain as technologically inept. What does it say if the very VP running mate has no faith in the very nominee he is with? Is it all about just the possibility of being the VP that enticed him to accept this possible position?

 

So with that said, I stand firm on my decision to vote McCain/Palin.

 

Placing my hand over my heart for my country, because that is my patriotic duty.

Edited October 3, 2008 by cindyinTexas

[astrid]

Nothing to do with whether or not I agree with it.

 

I'm just really impressed that we've managed to pack in over a hundred responses without delving into any real policy issues until now! I was skeptical at the beginning of the thread, but as far as I can tell (and I've TRIED to keep up with the thread) this is the first time we've veered off topic. Whether we're talking about crock-pot recipes of abortion, that's pretty darn good, don't you think?

 

Oh....and a cat walked across the keyboard, then jumped down, and the dog chased her and my laptop went flying, so I didn't get to go back and edit for clarity----so sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

 

astrid

[astrid]

Nope, Astrid you weren't paying attention..perhaps because you were too distracted by her winks and mommy stuff...

 

And, I believe she addressed the economy very thoroughly, you just didn't agree with her position so therefore it holds no value with you.

 

Tara

 

Well, thanks for telling me what I believe and value, but that's not it. She didn't answer the questions, and I guess we just disagree on that.

 

astrid

[astrid]

Then you are not going to like this post! :lol: but seriously, I'm glad we can have a civil discussion and I do very, very much respect what you have to say and we already know we disagree about politics.

 

 

 

 

 

1. Barack is not the one saying he is a maverick.

 

2. As biden pointed out, McCain had 477 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 477 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 477 times.

 

3. fact check:

 

4. Over 95% of small businesses in America make under 250,000.

 

5. Obama's tax plan favors the middle class. Obama's tax plan will see no increase if you make less than 250,000. Those in the top 1% will be paying more taxes but still not more than they were paying when Reagan was in office.

 

 

I wish I had rep!

 

astrid

[astrid]

What amazes me the most is we expect Palin to know as much as Biden. .........Placing my hand over my heart for my country, because that is my patriotic duty.

 

<cue patriotic music>

 

But I thought she had more "executive experience" than anyone running?

 

And just to clarify.....do you consider anyone who is not supporting McCain/Palin to be unpatriotic?

 

astrid

Edited October 3, 2008 by astrid
added a question

[nmoira]

 

Palin reminds me of someone that I can relate to in the real world on the issues in Washington.

This is *exactly* what many were saying about Bush 8 years ago, and look where that got us. Liking someone is not enough.

[threetreasurs]

Well lets at least agree that we should ALL vote on election day! I hope the voter turnout goes through the roof!!!!!!!!!!!:lurk5:

[Jennifer in NH]

This is *exactly* what many were saying about Bush 8 years ago, and look where that got us. Liking someone is not enough.

This might come as a shocker;), but some of us who like Palin (maybe not all), also like President Bush. Count me amoung them...What I don't like about him, are similar things to why McCain is not my favorite...they just aren't conservative enough....

as for the debate..i really enjoyed it, but i am not an undecided voter...I decided before Palin was picked and then got enthusiastic when she was picked...

have agreat envery one...and FWIW, I haven't been able to read most of this thread...might try to later though.

I need a speed reading course for this website!

Jenny

[Haiku]

What does it say if the very VP running mate has no faith in the very nominee he is with?

 

Well, it would say that he is a moronic, power-hungry idiot who probably plans to secretly whack the president so he can get in the driver's seat. :lol:

 

Fortunately, no one believes that to be true because I don't think anyone really thinks Biden has "no faith" in Obama. Personally, I think it's fine that Biden and Obama disagree on some things (and McCain and Palin, if that be the case). I don't want a yes-man in the VP position, I want someone who can consider the issues and speak his/her mind to a president who is willing to listen.

 

I think that Biden's 35-year record shows he is not a moronic, power-hungry idiot. ;)

 

Tara

[Spy Car]

;)

[Margaret in GA]

Well, like most people I thought my party's candidate won. I do feel more than ever that Palin is clearly out of her league (lots of winkin' and question avoidin'). I see that McCain's camp has already had to correct her today

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-misstates.html

 

Margaret

[Alaska Mom]

>>Joe Biden has been in the Senate for 35 years.<<

 

 

That anyone could stay in there for 35 years. Man we need some term limits so we can stop having career politicians! (no particular disrespect for Biden - I thought he was fine, just that I think we need fresh blood in there on a regular basis)

 

 

 

So what I want to know is how do you reconcile "35 years in the Senate" with "Change"? :confused::confused::confused:

 

Is it the "change" to a socialist state, impaired national security and making terrorists and brutal dictators U.S. allies that their talking about? :confused:

[Mama Lynx]

The problem with Palin's remarks is that she appears to accept Cheney's assertion that he's part of the legislative rather than the executive branch of government. He claims that because he's not part of the executive, his office is not subject to the same kind of record keeping requirement and inspection requirements as the President. Yet simultaneously, he argues executive privilege for things like requests to see who attended this meeting or that. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to imagine the potential abuses of this situation.

 

When I read the Constitution, I can see Cheney's point. As I read the Constitution, it seems to me that the office of the VP seems to straddle the legislative and executive, as the election of the VP is talked about in the executive article, but his powers are enumerated under the legislative article. However, I do agree about the potential abuses of the situation. I am not a Constitutional scholar.

 

However, I do wonder if Gov. Palin was actually very well informed of this situation. She seemed to know the content of the Consitution better than Sn. Biden (though he could have easily just misspoke the article, he should know that the VP's job is meant to be President of the Senate). HOwever ... I'm not offering this to excuse her, I just think it makes a difference whether she fully realized what happened with Cheney. She's only been at this for 5 weeks - they can't have covered everything with her, and it's very possible that the stuff with Cheney might not be something she paid attention to in Alaska.

 

If she was ill-informed, well, her answer reflects the content of the Constitution, and she didn't realize the question Gwen Ifill was *really* asking. She needs to be informed, and then to fix her answer if questioned again. If she was well-informed, then I would like to see her questioned about Cheney's interpretation of VP power, duties, and record-keeping/inspection requirements.

[TeacherZee]

Well lets at least agree that we should ALL vote on election day! I hope the voter turnout goes through the roof!!!!!!!!!!!:lurk5:

 

:iagree:

 

I voted today! (I have an absentee ballot since I don't live in the states) I always vote, it is a right and a privileged that I take very seriously. People died to give me the vote

 

*Back to your regular scheduled program!*:D

[nmoira]

 

When I read the Constitution, I can see Cheney's point. As I read the Constitution, it seems to me that the office of the VP seems to straddle the legislative and executive, as the election of the VP is talked about in the executive article, but his powers are enumerated under the legislative article. However, I do agree about the potential abuses of the situation. I am not a Constitutional scholar.

Do you think it was the intent of the framers of the Constitution that the office of the Vice President be exempt from Executive oversights because it's not part of the Executive Branch AND be able to claim any needed protections of the Executive Branch because it is part of the Executive Branch? This is potentially very dangerous thinking. If it is truly part of both the the Executive and Legislative Branches, oversight should be more stringent (having to adhere to rules for both sides), not less.

[astrid]

:iagree:

astrid

[Mama Lynx]

Do you think it was the intent of the framers of the Constitution that the office of the Vice President be exempt from Executive oversights because it's not part of the Executive Branch AND be able to claim any needed protections of the Executive Branch because it is part of the Executive Branch? This is potentially very dangerous thinking. If it is truly part of both the the Executive and Legislative Branches, oversight should be more stringent (having to adhere to rules for both sides), not less.

 

No, not at all. I'm saying that it seems to me that there is a Constitutional case to be made for the office of the VP to be flexible, and to be part of both the Executive and Legislative branch - that is what I take from my reading. However, I support the idea that if you are going to operate in both branches, you must accept the oversight of both branches. The flexibility should not mean a free pass on oversight, record-keeping, etc. I do not condone Cheney's interpretation in that respect.

 

But I don't think that Palin implied that.