Debate Comment
MZB
I have just a few comments. Note that I am a strong Democrat and pro-Obama
supporter.
1) Palin is doing well. I expected her to do well. She is smarter than folks
think based on her dumbass recent interview replies and she is an
experienced debater.
2) Biden is doing even better. He is actually answering some of the
questions and so far no GAFFE (which I was/am concerned about).
3) If Sarah refers to hockey or soccer Mom one more time I'm gonna scream.
4) Keep up with that phony smile Sarah. It's wearing thin.
5) Keep referring to Biden's 30 years, experience, etc. Does Sarah think
that makes him look bad?
Overall, so far Sarah hasn't embarrassed herself. She seems to be able to
survive in this debate and that will be a big boon for the McCain ticket in
the sense that the ticket would have been sunk with a poor performance.
That's it up to now!
Mel
da pickle nospam
If she says "also" one more time I'm gonna scream.........
MZB
Mel
"da pickle nospam" <jcpi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:156188d6-102b-4793...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Jon
>
> - Show quoted text -
Say it together with all of us Sarah: The word is: NEW-CLE-AR ....
AAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!
Irish Mike
"MZB" <m...@noway.prudigy.net> wrote in message
news:WifFk.40897$hX5....@newsfe06.iad...
Thanks for mentioning that up front bucko. We would never have never
guessed from your anti-Palin, kiss-Biden's-ass assessment of the debate.
Irish Mike
FL Turbo
wrote:
I agree.
I have also been pleasantly surprised by the job done by Ifill.
She may be in the tank for Obama, but she done good so far, anyway.
FL Turbo
wrote:
>And if she refers to her family as DIVERSE one more time....
>
>Mel
It's downright theft.
Stealing the "Diversity" buzzword from the Lefties.
Pretty sneaky, eh?
croupe
I thought she did very well. The only thing that bugged me was the
fact that she was looking at her notes 90% of the time, and then would
back-track to previous questions. She managed to hide her accent - so
that should work out for her. I would say that, since she did manage
to appear competent for an hour and 1/2 , that she "won" the debate
(based on beating expectation - more like beating the spread).
Croupe
BeaForoni
I like Ms Palin. She would have made a great weather-woman or even as
an anchor for the local news; easy to look at and a pleasant voice.
MZB
BOTH did well and clearly accomplished their objectives.
Biden wanted to avoid gaffes and being overly chatty. He did. He wanted to
tie McCain into the Bush failed strategies. He did. He wanted to present
Obama as being for the average family. He did.
Palin ABSOLUTELY HAD to repair the recent damage that was making her the
laughing stock of this campaign. She did that very well.
Biden was clearly more prepared and won the official debate (only Irish
would probably disagree with that). But Palin saved the day for the Reps.
Two other points: Sarah Palin's comfort zone is energy. Didn't matter what
the question was at times, she reverted to energy as the universal response.
Not good.
Sarah did make a gaffe: Regarding what she would cut, to paraphrase "I've
only been at this for 5 weeks..." BAD ANSWER
Mel
"croupe" <cro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:60199226-423b-458d...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
FL Turbo
wrote:
So the McCain/Palin ticket will get the Lesbian vote?
Clave
> And if she refers to her family as DIVERSE one more time....
She should have mentioned what state she's from a bit more.
Jim
Bob T.
If Mary Land is going to wear her new jersey, what will Della wear?
I'll ask her!
- Bob T, still only ten years old
>
> Jim
funky cold medina
-----
"Always with the negative waves Moriarty, always with them negative
waves."
-Oddball, 'Kelly's Heroes'
Dutch
> The debate is now over.
> BOTH did well and clearly accomplished their objectives.
>
> Biden wanted to avoid gaffes and being overly chatty. He did. He wanted to
> tie McCain into the Bush failed strategies. He did. He wanted to present
> Obama as being for the average family. He did.
>
> Palin ABSOLUTELY HAD to repair the recent damage that was making her the
> laughing stock of this campaign. She did that very well.
>
> Biden was clearly more prepared and won the official debate (only Irish
> would probably disagree with that). But Palin saved the day for the Reps.
>
> Two other points: Sarah Palin's comfort zone is energy. Didn't matter what
> the question was at times, she reverted to energy as the universal
> response. Not good.
> Sarah did make a gaffe: Regarding what she would cut, to paraphrase "I've
> only been at this for 5 weeks..." BAD ANSWER
She also got the name of a general wrong, several times while attempting to
contradict Biden on what that general had said about doing a surge in
Afghanistan.
Dutch
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote
I'm thinking of all the people watching and asking themselves, "What's a
hockey mom?"
Clave
news:zicFk.6180$eZ6....@newsfe14.iad...
Good point -- I'm from Minnesota, so that slid right on by.
Jim
Travel
noe...@notime.com Post #13 of 17 (1 views) Copy Shortcut Oct 2,
2008, 10:58 PM
Re: Debate Comment Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
....................................................................
That's right Turbotard, they'll even take your vote...so figure it out.
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com
Deadmoney Walking
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, since Palin wouldn't attack him, I guess he has to attack
himself.
Pepe Papon
How many times did she use the word "maverick"?
Pepe Papon
She appears not to know what an Achilles Heel is.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:quhbe4hf9nmnino8d...@4ax.com...
The partisan asshole contingency likes to post amongst themselves.
Joe Long
> On Oct 2, 7:19 pm, "MZB" <m...@noway.prudigy.net> wrote:
>> 3) If Sarah refers to hockey or soccer Mom one more time I'm gonna scream.
> If she says "also" one more time I'm gonna scream.........
Every time she said "hockey mom" or "Maverick" the lines on the
focus-group graph dropped instantly. She needs to learn that such tags
can be overused.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
Joe Long
> The debate is now over.
> BOTH did well and clearly accomplished their objectives.
>
> Biden wanted to avoid gaffes and being overly chatty. He did. He wanted to
> tie McCain into the Bush failed strategies. He did. He wanted to present
> Obama as being for the average family. He did.
Although Biden tried valiantly to tie McCain to Bush, IMO he failed to
do that, and Palin got in the best sound-bite line of the night over it.
> Sarah did make a gaffe: Regarding what she would cut, to paraphrase "I've
> only been at this for 5 weeks..." BAD ANSWER
A minor gaffe in that Dems are sure to try to exploit it, but as Biden
has only been "at this" for about eight weeks I don't think it will have
any traction. "This" being a V.P. nominee. It also cleverly helped
deflect some of the recent criticism of her from the interviews -- "Hey,
give me a little time to get up to speed."
Dutch
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:QKydndq8570rKXjV...@cablespeedmi.com...
Minnesota. so you know that she sounds exactly like Margie Gunderson, yah?
Dutch
"Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:qUoFk.373$yI6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Does your wife know that you're completely in the tank for Margie Gunderson,
I mean Sarah Palin?
BeaForoni
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:41:40 -0700 (PDT), BeaForoni <BeaFor...@msn.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't know. Is she getting the child molestor vote?
Clave
Well yah, fergoshsakes. Also my dad also.
Jim
Pepe Papon
And I suppose you're going to claim that you're completely unbiased.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:nEvFk.27$kn...@newsfe12.iad...
I want a liberal supreme court.
I am pro-choice to the point of near-obsession, as a fairness issue.
I hate bible-thumping morons in politics.
I stated MONTHS ago that I'm more than willing to pay the economic price of
a retarded democrat in the White House for the social good that comes of it,
this term at least.
Seriously, you fucking idiot.
I'm pointing out the major flaws in the candidate I think will be the least
objectionable, because I'm honest.
You aren't.
That's a huge difference between us.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
I DON'T LIKE Palin as a candidate.
She's a bible thumper. Go read all my points against Romney again.
She's pro-life. Go read my abortion points when I fought it out with Dutchie
again.
She's anti gay marriage, and any number of other progressive social issues.
Obama is a moron, because he never should have ignored Hillary. BECAUSE he's
a moron, McCain can pick a politically brilliant choice. A woman, that gets
him some disappointed feminists, and a right-wing nutbag, that shores up his
base.
I can appreciate the political brilliance while being disappointed in what
now may happen if he wins.
Perhaps you could see the flaws in your own choice, and try and work to get
them fixed, rather than pretending otherwise.
\
Pepe Papon
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
It's comforting to know that we have Beldin the all-knowing around
here to judge the decision-making processes of the rest of us shithead
masses.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
I'm the least emotional person when it comes to politics.
I'll note you failed utterly to admit you were wrong about which candidate I
support.
You refuse to accept reality before making your decision... likely because
reality makes it much harder for you to MAKE that decision.
Pepe Papon
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>Perhaps you could see the flaws in your own choice, and try and work to
>>>get
>>>them fixed, rather than pretending otherwise.
>>
>> It's comforting to know that we have Beldin the all-knowing around
>> here to judge the decision-making processes of the rest of us shithead
>> masses.
>
>I'm the least emotional person when it comes to politics.
>I'll note you failed utterly to admit you were wrong about which candidate I
>support.
It's hard to be wrong about something that I never commented on.
>You refuse to accept reality before making your decision... likely because
>reality makes it much harder for you to MAKE that decision.
>
Thanks for the amateur psychoanalysis, wth the emphasis on "amateur".
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 02:14:43 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>>>Perhaps you could see the flaws in your own choice, and try and work to
>>>>get
>>>>them fixed, rather than pretending otherwise.
>>>
>>> It's comforting to know that we have Beldin the all-knowing around
>>> here to judge the decision-making processes of the rest of us shithead
>>> masses.
>>
>>I'm the least emotional person when it comes to politics.
>>I'll note you failed utterly to admit you were wrong about which candidate
>>I
>>support.
>
> It's hard to be wrong about something that I never commented on.
That's an implied statement of support.
>
>>You refuse to accept reality before making your decision... likely because
>>reality makes it much harder for you to MAKE that decision.
>>
>
> Thanks for the amateur psychoanalysis, wth the emphasis on "amateur".
Thanks for proving it correct.
John_Brian_K
> contradict Biden on what that general had said about doing a surge in
> Afghanistan.
No she didn't.
TIGERS World Series- 35, 45, 68, 84
RED WINGS Stanley Cups- 36, 37, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 97, 98, 02, 08
PISTONS Championships- 44, 45, 89, 90, 05
LIONS Superbowls- lol
BOOM byae
John
________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
JerseyRudy
> > She also got the name of a general wrong, several times while attempting
to
> > contradict Biden on what that general had said about doing a surge in
> > Afghanistan.
>
> No she didn't.
Yes she did. McLellan was a civil war general. McKiernan is the general
in Afghanistan. She got the first two letters right, so she didn't totally
mess that one up.
>
-----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Pepe Papon
<beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:1snge4hthu06pgibc...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 02:14:43 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Perhaps you could see the flaws in your own choice, and try and work to
>>>>>get
>>>>>them fixed, rather than pretending otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> It's comforting to know that we have Beldin the all-knowing around
>>>> here to judge the decision-making processes of the rest of us shithead
>>>> masses.
>>>
>>>I'm the least emotional person when it comes to politics.
>>>I'll note you failed utterly to admit you were wrong about which candidate
>>>I
>>>support.
>>
>> It's hard to be wrong about something that I never commented on.
>You assumed bias.
>That's an implied statement of support.
Not at all.
>
>>
>>>You refuse to accept reality before making your decision... likely because
>>>reality makes it much harder for you to MAKE that decision.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the amateur psychoanalysis, wth the emphasis on "amateur".
>
>Thanks for proving it correct.
This retort has jumped the shark. Can't you come up with something
fresher?
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 08:05:46 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:1snge4hthu06pgibc...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 02:14:43 GMT, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>>> <beld...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Perhaps you could see the flaws in your own choice, and try and work
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>get
>>>>>>them fixed, rather than pretending otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's comforting to know that we have Beldin the all-knowing around
>>>>> here to judge the decision-making processes of the rest of us shithead
>>>>> masses.
>>>>
>>>>I'm the least emotional person when it comes to politics.
>>>>I'll note you failed utterly to admit you were wrong about which
>>>>candidate
>>>>I
>>>>support.
>>>
>>> It's hard to be wrong about something that I never commented on.
>>You assumed bias.
>>That's an implied statement of support.
>
> Not at all.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>You refuse to accept reality before making your decision... likely
>>>>because
>>>>reality makes it much harder for you to MAKE that decision.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for the amateur psychoanalysis, wth the emphasis on "amateur".
>>
>>Thanks for proving it correct.
>
> This retort has jumped the shark. Can't you come up with something
> fresher?
It's simple truth, my preferred approach.
Dutch
> It's simple truth, my preferred approach.
I can't decide when you sound sillier, when you crefer to people as
"asshole" and "shithead" as you defend the integrity of "the group", or when
you refer to "truth" and "facts" as you blurt out your opinions.
Pepe Papon
More like simplemindedness.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Calling a lying weasel an asshole isn't a bad thing.
Tell me, you ever gonna cop to actually not being Canadian?
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
Learn to deconstruct a sentence yet?
Dutch
>
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:nEvFk.27$kn...@newsfe12.iad...
>>
>> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:qUoFk.373$yI6...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>>
>>> "Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:quhbe4hf9nmnino8d...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:25:55 -0700, "Clave"
>>>> <ClaviusNo...@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"MZB" <m...@noway.prudigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:JrfFk.41323$hX5....@newsfe06.iad...
>>>>>> And if she refers to her family as DIVERSE one more time....
>>>>>
>>>>>She should have mentioned what state she's from a bit more.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jim
>>>>
>>>> How many times did she use the word "maverick"?
>>>
>>> The partisan asshole contingency likes to post amongst themselves.
>>
>> Does your wife know that you're completely in the tank for Margie
>> Gunderson, I mean Sarah Palin?
>>
>>
> Dutch, how long have you been a shithead?
>
> I want a liberal supreme court.
Me too
> I am pro-choice to the point of near-obsession, as a fairness issue.
Me too
> I hate bible-thumping morons in politics.
Me too
> I stated MONTHS ago that I'm more than willing to pay the economic price
> of a retarded democrat in the White House for the social good that comes
> of it, this term at least.
Me too
> Seriously, you fucking idiot.
You must be one too, I agree with all your above points.
> I'm pointing out the major flaws in the candidate I think will be the
> least objectionable, because I'm honest.
> You aren't.
I honestly think Palin is a ditz and she looked it in that debate. She lost
despite several slips by Biden. Polls agree with me.
> That's a huge difference between us.
Where have I been dishonest? Your problem is that you think when someone
disagrees with you they must either be lying or a shithead.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Not the same thing, and not objective, either.
>
>> That's a huge difference between us.
>
> Where have I been dishonest? Your problem is that you think when someone
> disagrees with you they must either be lying or a shithead.
It isn't a matter of agreeing with me or not.
Objective views were, in general, a tie.
People calling it "not even close" in either direction are therefore
partisan assholes.
>
>
Dutch
The poll of polls had the Dems giving to Biden 85-15, the Reps giving it to
Palin by about the same margin, and undeclared voters say it was 60-40
Biden.
>>
>>> That's a huge difference between us.
>>
>> Where have I been dishonest? Your problem is that you think when someone
>> disagrees with you they must either be lying or a shithead.
>
> It isn't a matter of agreeing with me or not.
It appears to be, you only say it when someone disagrees with you.
> Objective views were, in general, a tie.
Not true. I watch several objective commentators who routinely criticize
both sides and they all gave Biden the edge. The only positives for Palin
were that she was more likeable and she did better than expected after a
very bad week.
> People calling it "not even close" in either direction are therefore
> partisan assholes.
I agree they are partisan, but that doesn't make them assholes.
Beldin the Sorcerer
>>>
>>>> That's a huge difference between us.
>>>
>>> Where have I been dishonest? Your problem is that you think when someone
>>> disagrees with you they must either be lying or a shithead.
>>
>> It isn't a matter of agreeing with me or not.
>
> It appears to be, you only say it when someone disagrees with you.
I point it our when someone says something that isn't true.
I generally am posting the facts, so that may be the source of your
confusion.
>
>> Objective views were, in general, a tie.
>
> Not true. I watch several objective commentators who routinely criticize
> both sides and they all gave Biden the edge. The only positives for Palin
> were that she was more likeable and she did better than expected after a
> very bad week.
>
Name three.
>> People calling it "not even close" in either direction are therefore
>> partisan assholes.
>
> I agree they are partisan, but that doesn't make them assholes.
>
Partisan asshole is a type of asshole.
Delusional partisan asshole is much worse.
>
Dutch
>> The poll of polls had the Dems giving to Biden 85-15, the Reps giving it
>> to Palin by about the same margin, and undeclared voters say it was 60-40
>> Biden.
> Assuming the 'undeclared' were telling the truth.
Why would you assume otherwise?
Why would you assume that such a factor, if it existed, would favor either
candidate?
Why would you assume that professional pollsters would not be fully aware of
such factors?
Why would anyone conclude that the opinions of 3 random radio personalities
is a more reliable reflection of public opinion than a series of
professionally conducted polls?
In short it boils to the same question many of us have been pondering for a
long time, how can you be such a nitwit?
brewmaster
On Oct 2 2008 7:19 PM, MZB wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing it -- I see no thread for some running debate commentary.
>
> I have just a few comments. Note that I am a strong Democrat and pro-Obama
> supporter.
>
> 1) Palin is doing well. I expected her to do well. She is smarter than folks
> think based on her dumbass recent interview replies and she is an
> experienced debater.
>
> 2) Biden is doing even better. He is actually answering some of the
> questions and so far no GAFFE (which I was/am concerned about).
>
> 3) If Sarah refers to hockey or soccer Mom one more time I'm gonna scream.
>
> 4) Keep up with that phony smile Sarah. It's wearing thin.
>
> 5) Keep referring to Biden's 30 years, experience, etc. Does Sarah think
> that makes him look bad?
>
> Overall, so far Sarah hasn't embarrassed herself. She seems to be able to
> survive in this debate and that will be a big boon for the McCain ticket in
> the sense that the ticket would have been sunk with a poor performance.
>
> That's it up to now!
>
> Mel
---------------
Email me here: http://tinymail.me/k4r2nk
_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Beldin the Sorcerer
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" <beld...@verizon.net> wrote
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>
>>> The poll of polls had the Dems giving to Biden 85-15, the Reps giving it
>>> to Palin by about the same margin, and undeclared voters say it was
>>> 60-40 Biden.
>> Assuming the 'undeclared' were telling the truth.
>
> Why would you assume otherwise?
percentage every year simply want to vote for the winner.
>
> Why would you assume that such a factor, if it existed, would favor either
> candidate?
The candidate with the larger political party has the better chance of
manipulating public opinion in this manner.
>
> Why would you assume that professional pollsters would not be fully aware
> of such factors?
Because they get paid for polls, not for polling accuracy.
Look at the past 10 months, for christ's sake.
>
> Why would anyone conclude that the opinions of 3 random radio
> personalities is a more reliable reflection of public opinion than a
> series of professionally conducted polls?
Not random at all.
Heads of their respective news departments.
Which generally means decades on the job.
>
> In short it boils to the same question many of us have been pondering for
> a long time, how can you be such a nitwit?
Shit, Dutch, my IQ is a factor of Aleph ahead of yours.