Biden v. Palin: St. Louis Ribbing?

There's the rub. I think you're entirely wrong in your assessment of her. I think you're seeing things where those things simply don't exist. I think you're doing so because you just don't like the women.

I also think you place WAY WAY WAY too much importance on a one hour long block of nonsense.

Of course, you don't agree with me. I expect that. However, your not agreeing with me sure doesn't make what you say correct.

I believe that you are wrong in every single thing you've said.

I believe that your opinion is uneducated, uninformed and lacking in any real substance that matters.

You've made it clear that you think the same of me.

No problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

tiassa, our consitution goes further than that and specifies that the SOLE arbitor of the constitution is the high court, yes rulings have enhanced that in that in commonwealth v communist party of australia (i may have them backwards) the high court ruled that no matter what the parliment can not set its own limits on its areas of influance. That is the sole job of the courts.

in reality we have more likly two branches of goverment, a REALLY strong judicury and a really strong executive. THe legilsative branch is the weak one in that in reality all they can do is block legislation, its the goverment who must create it.

Now i have not herd goverments really complaine about the courts but if they did i doubt they would find much sympathy amongst the educated in Australia because we arnt foolish enough not to realise how limited the executive is. This means that the courts and the devision between commonwealth and state are really the main checks and balances here.

Its why we have been debating a bill of rights along the same lines as the US, though i do admit its not as clear cut as the US may see the argument or even as i thought they were a year ago.

for instance what if a proposed right to free speach was used to protect junk food or cigaret advertising

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26010055/


Bidens famous quotes or supreme fucking blunders:

1/Biden before he was selected to run on Obama's ticket in which Biden said he would be "honored" to run with McCain.

2/He was forced to exit the 1988 race after he was caught having borrowed portions of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock — without giving him credit.


3/In 2007, he seemed to be talking down to Obama by calling him “clean” and “articulate.”


4/In 2006 he said, “In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking.”

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

It seem you should be running a thread on biden not palin, i have never seen such a idiot, racist red neck, Obama is clean & articulate as to what a black pimp or mugger with a low IQ.

He would have loved to have been McCains running mate, oh & what have you all got on palin oh she said she can see russia from her window, wow, one can certainly see why america is gunning for her & not biden the asshole.

 

Bells: I hope I am wrong in my assessment of her. But so far, she has not proven me wrong. Are you telling me her interviews do not exist? Surely you aren't saying that her questionable actions while Mayor and Governor are somehow non-existent?

Wrong again. She's more than proved that your assessment of her is incorrect. You just don't want to see it. You've made up your mind and you'll not be swayed by anything. As I said, you plain flat don't like her.

Do I like her? I don't know her, so I cannot judge her personally. But it is her actions and her words that I find highly suspect.

Semantics. It's obvious that you don't like her, period. If she personally saved the USA from nuclear attack and destruction, all you'd have to say is "Well, perhaps I was wrong about her, but I don't think so. She got lucky".
Let's face it; there is nothing that Palin could do, EVER, to change your impression of her. That makes it pointless to discuss her with you.

It was that one hour joke of a debate and more. But here's the thing. You are saying that people should not put too much importance on just that one hour or so debate.

Correct.

<You are saying>That no one should take note of what little she has done in the campaign.

I've said no such thing. You're attempting to accuse me of saying something that I've never said. How very desperate that is. Is there not enough verbiage in what I've actually said for you to attack? Now you have to invent quotes?

All we've seen of her since she has entered the election arena, which is very little, is all that we have to go on. And thus far, it is not very promising.

Then you haven't researched her history. Have you read any of her speeches in the state in which she is the Governor? Have you examined her stance or actions on any of the issues in Alaska? Have you read anything of her actions as the Chairperson to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission? Are you even aware that she holds a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism?

I will risk answering for you on these questions. No, no, no and no. Please feel free to enlighten me with your intimate knowledge of her past actions in these venues. Read fast, because I believe that anything you come back with concerning these factors of her experience will be gained by what you NOW read, since I brought your ignorance of them to the front.

You may be one of the nicest people in the world, but you're attempting to rail-road Governor Palin with tar and feathers before even knowing much about her. In your own words, "All we've seen of her since she has entered the election arena, which is very little, is all that we have to go on. And thus far, it is not very promising." you say that "IS ALL WE HAVE TO GO ON".

I say that's bullshit. You're witch hunting. Your own ignorance of her past history of public service is what you're basing your opinion on. Ignorance based opinions are worth nothing.

If McCain has only brought her in to roust the Republican base, to have them hear what they want to hear.. to have a pretty face with a folksy attitude to appeal to the general public.. if that is all that McCain is doing, it is wrong.

That's your impression of what he is doing and you're trying as hard as you can to propagate that opinion into fact. Sorry, it's bull and will remain bull. It's a figment of your imagination.

It is wrong by her and it is wrong by the people.

Since it's not what is happening, your opinion is baseless and pointless.

This woman is literally, in the position to take the highest seat in the US (if McCain should pass away in that time) and she does not appear to be ready in that she lacks knowledge and understanding of the issues facing your country.

As Speaker of the House, Pelosi ranks second in the line of presidential succession. Is she a qualified candidate for the office of the President? Have you examined her credentials? I'll answer for you; NO.

"She does not appear..." To who? You? Who cares? Your misguided opinion is based on ignorance. Why should anyone give worth to it?

And your saying that she will have advisers telling her what she needs to do and explain things to her is not good enough.

Even though that is what happens with every single person who has ever held the office of Vice President. The true capabilities and responsibilities of the office aren't known to anyone who has not served in that same capacity and cannot be divulged to anyone after serving as VP. Thousands of things must be learned AFTER taking the office. The fact that you're unaware of that tells me that you really haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Her level of experience is not the issue here.

The hell it isn't. It most certainly is.

What is the issue is whether she understands what her role will be and the current state of the country is and what it will face in the future.

Since you seem to be completely unaware of the briefing process of a newly elected Vice President, it would be a waste of time to tell you that I know that she is aware of everything that you think she's ignorant of. Just because she hasn't outlined her future responsibilities to the media doesn't mean she's unaware of them. I find the idea patently hilarious. Her briefings will be continuous and her ability to learn will be the primary factor in her gaining full knowledge of her new position as VP, as it has been with every VP that has ever filled the slot.

Thus far, she has avoided or seriously stuffed up any questions pertaining to those subjects. One would expect at least a rudimentary understanding. She hasn't even been able to give that. It is akin to taking a cleaner who works in a hospital theater and giving him a scalpel and telling him to operate on someone while another tells him what he has to do each step of the way.

No, it's not the same. I've made that clear already. Your own ignorance of the learning curve and process that takes place AFTER election is painfully obvious. If you were elected, within a few short weeks after your election, you'd be aware of thousands of processes and procedures that you now are totally ignorant of. At that point, YOU would be capable of performing the necessary actions of the VP in reference to national security. The naivety of people who think ONE persons decisions are what are acted on in the White House never ceases to amaze me. The FINAL decisions are based on the input of hundreds of people who have researched the specifics and outlined them for their superiors, all the way to the top. To be fully informed on every specific involved is IMPOSSIBLE. It simply cannot be done.

So, your silly little equation involving the cleaning staff of a hospital is an extremely poor argument and holds no water.

Here's a point of interest to you; I witnessed a field operation to remove a large piece of shrapnel from a man. The action was overseen by a Doctor who had been wounded in the same exchange and had no use of either of his hands. The operation was performed by a person who was a Desk Clerk. It was done well, the man survived with little complication and both the Doctor and Desk Clerk received high praise for their combined efforts.

So yes, that person who was a staff cleaner could very well have performed with the proper briefing and guidance, as will Governor Palin after she's received the information withheld from her by law. Her native intelligence will serve her well in this capacity.


Nor does it make what you say correct.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Very true. It comes down to which of us is more informed. I believe that to be me.

We are mere observers of a garish play, with results that are yet to be determined.

Because of the medias propensity to tell everyone everything they know or find out, the fact that most of the VP's job is unknown to all except a few is comforting to me. I really don't want the enemies of the USA to know exactly what our actual defences are in detail. Vice President Palin will know, AFTER she learns them AS the Vice President.

It is my sincerest hope that I am wrong. Because the alternative is a terrifying thought.

I agree. If, after many unsuccessful attempts at formal briefings, it were discovered that an elected Vice President was just too freaking stupid to learn the job, (Even Dan Quayle learned it evidently), then I have no doubt that that person would "retire from office due to illness". They would tactfully get that person the hell away from the tools, so to speak.

I don't believe that this will be the case with Governor Palin. I think she'll learn the job fast, accurately and will perform in her new position in an effective manner.

You are free to have your opinions. You have thus far, done, said or showed nothing to prove me wrong.

Actually, I have. I just haven't changed your mind and you haven't corrected your ignorance of the facts of the matter.

Your saying it is so, does not make it so.

Truer words have never been spoken. It holds true for you as well.

I do not know you. All I have to go by are your words and actions on this board. And again, you've said nothing that can put even a hint of doubt in my mind that I might just be wrong. To date, you have been highly defensive and at times, downright offensive and rude. So I can only go by what I see.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's true that my impression of what is allowed or not turned out to be wrong. I've since corrected my actions and verbiage to stay within those allowances. To defend a position isn't a fault. If it is, then you are as guilty as I am.

As for anything that I've said that you may have interpreted as "offensive and rude", I'll apologize to you for the manner in which I worded those exchanges. My use of vulgarity and my very forward mannerisms were calculated actions on my part. I performed them to gain your full attention, and it worked fabulously.

I'm enjoying our discussion and I think it brings forth consideration of points that need examination from both sides of the issues.

Once again, please accept my sincere apologies for any of my statements that may have been rude, overly aggressive or offensive. The tone and manner in which I express myself in this post will be the only format you'll see in the future.

 

I missed the live debate, but as I followed it on youtube just now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89FbCPzAsRA

I feel like ':huh:', is this the person that going to lead the most powerful country
in the world? She couldn't even pronounce nuclear. She doesn't appear to have
a bit least capacity for the position. :wave: This sum up well her debate style:

 

Agreed, the debate was a little sugar for the koolaid crowd. The format was extremely lax and she was not able to answer direct questions...just spew a little sugar at the koolaid drinkers (extreme right & fema-nazis). She remind me of another W. God knows we do not need another W.

 

I think that she should be at the top of the ticket.

 

I don't understand...
Who IS the government?
What banch creates the laws?

 

And I will rate your evaluation of Palin according to the accuracy of your evaluations of the posters here, which are no more accurate than would be expected from the fact that you don't know what you are talking about when you talk about them, either.

You were apparently very impressed by Palin's maintaining her poise in carefully controlled circumstances of an hour's debate. Aside from that, you make vague allusions to secret stuff and shadowy minions and her ability to learn, and so forth, but the actual evidence you rest your entire assessment on here is that debate performance. It blew you away.

I wasn't that impressed by her debate performance, nor do I regard it as the extremely important and all-convincing event you claim it to be. That kind of poise under that kind of pressure is adequate for beauty queens and possibly small town mayors (if the city council hires a city administrator to do the real work), but it does not grow into executive ability in real life situations.

As Mike Royko said in reference to Gerald Ford: "The Presidency ain't a pair of baggy pants."

As far as her ability to take advice, she doesn't seem the type - but to the extent she is, she is surrounded by the same crew of ideological wingnuts, total fuckups, and bold criminals that have been operating in the shadows of the current administration for eight years now. If she really can make up for the ignorance of a lifetime's incurious and shallow Pentacostal benightedness in a couple of months of sponging up policy briefings, she would then be a somewhat more capable front for the same people Reagan and W fronted for.

That is not good enough. She isn't qualified for the job, obviously. The question is: does she know that ? Does she know she's being used ?

None of your apologies, or posts, appear sincerely on topic. Again: there is an entire section of this forum devoted to your apparent chief interest - it's called "about the members".

 

Now that's a mouthful. Would you please rip that sentence into it's most basic pieces and explain what it is that you mean, in simple terms by your usage of those words in that order? I'll be the very first to tell you that I don't have a freaking clue what that means. I'd really appreciate it if you'd tell me the same exact thing in more simple words.

Thanks in advance for your help. It's important to me to know that I fully understand what you mean in that sentence. How can I possibly exchange any type of meaningful argument with you if I don't understand exactly what you mean?

 

Start smaller. Show some sign of willingness to engage in "meaningful argument" about anything at all except another poster's deficiencies, and we can try to deal with your claimed inability to understand stuff you don't like, later.

 

Does that mean that you're refusing to explain what you mean by "If she really can make up for the ignorance of a lifetime's incurious and shallow Pentacostal benightedness..."?

Please, explain that one little phrase to me. Exactly what is it that it means?

How sure of a sign do you expect? I'm telling you I want to learn exactly what you mean by something you've said and you tell me you're not going to tell me.

Please, deal with it now, not later. If you don't do it now, I'll think that you just made up a bunch of words and strung them together in a meaningless train of unrelated words.

I'm sure you wouldn't want everyone here to think that I'm correct in that assumption. All you have to do is explain one sentence that you made in a very recent post you made.

Why would you avoid it?

 

the goverment is the party which holds the majority of seats in the house of reps. This is where you get majority or minority goverments. A majority goverment means that one party holds the majority of seats in there own right, a minority means they are working with either another party or independents to get a majority for the sake of passing surplie (the budget). As far as the consitution is concerned the only nessasity is that the goverment get the buget passed.

The parliment creates laws but they must pass BOTH houses, as i mentioned in another thread all laws can origionate in either house EXCEPT apropriation bills.

The reason this is different from the US is that even if an inderpendent members bill (this is what its called when someone or a group of someones who arnt goverment minsters puts a bill before the parliment including the oposition) passes the senate the goverment has to decide to vote for it in the house or it fall over there and then.

Unlike england our pollies dont regulally cross the floor so you can predict the numbers pritty much based on party lines. There is only one sentor for instance i have ever seen break party ranks and no one in the house.

Queensland is even more goverment controled in that there is only ONE house not 2 and the goverment is the party which holds the majority in that house.

Now there are some issues where the parties will alow a "free vote" but these are all things like abortion, euthanasia ect. If the 600 billon package was an australian bill you would know what the result was going to be before it was even entered into parliment

This being the case a strong independent judicury is vital to australia as a check on the power of the goverment, Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth and Evans v State of New South Wales

 

And doesn't have a thing to do with the American Political System.

 

I thought I killed in the debate. People liked my winks....

[wink]

 

And talk dirty every once and awhile:

 

You should thank the heavens stupidity isn't a crime.

 

Buffalo Roam
so?
i was asked a question which i answered
whats up your ass?

Oh and stop quoting entire posts just to post a quick one liner. I have warned you about that before