So, who won vice presidential debate???

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Goodness, what do we have here in you? An imported loony left from across the pond, eh

Another wanna be Andrew Sullivan I presume....

I am shocked that you want to mock another poster for which country he's from.

At least he's from a country that has an actual history of democracy.

I'm not mocking troll, just pattern recognition kicking in

My very own, beloved "first born" is of the same mindset. And, yes he is from across the pond too.

But since he finished his second degree in economics from machester u, his views seem to have been rightly adjusted...

You mean - he would go from supporting a Democratic social and economic agenda to supporting a repackaged, rebranded Neo-conservative agenda - all because he doesn't like the Democratic candidate?

[luckytxn 2,264]

I had to listen to the debate and not watch it again. I am surprised that Palin didn't blow it. Biden did well but hit no homeruns for sure. Palin actually did well. Give it to Biden overall.

Guess the attacks are gonna have to get even more frenzied on Palin to have any hope to stop McCain.

[HAL 9000 96]

I thought it was funny how when the topic was "the financial crisis", Palin quickly turned to "Energy".

Why the moderator failed to keep the debate on-topic, I don't know.

Probably b/c she is currently 'under fire' by some Republicans for announcing she's writing a book about African American success in politics.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I had to listen to the debate and not watch it again. I am surprised that Palin didn't blow it. Biden did well but hit no homeruns for sure. Palin actually did well. Give it to Biden overall.

Guess the attacks are gonna have to get even more frenzied on Palin to have any hope to stop McCain.

Get on your knees and hope that maybe someday youll be takin care of by the government!

[metta 0]

Goodness, what do we have here in you? An imported loony left from across the pond, eh

Another wanna be Andrew Sullivan I presume....

I am shocked that you want to mock another poster for which country he's from.

At least he's from a country that has an actual history of democracy.

I'm not mocking troll, just pattern recognition kicking in

My very own, beloved "first born" is of the same mindset. And, yes he is from across the pond too.

But since he finished his second degree in economics from machester u, his views seem to have been rightly adjusted...

You mean - he would go from supporting a Democratic social and economic agenda to supporting a repackaged, rebranded Neo-conservative agenda - all because he doesn't like the Democratic candidate?

No, not really. What I meant was that he has become less Manichean with regard to capitalism and class warfare. Yes, less doctrinaire in his world view and ideological orientation. Less loony but still a lefty

Forgot to add that he is a Brit and less passionate about American politics than I am..

Edited October 3, 2008 by metta

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

What did the conservatives think about her also supporting legislative acceptance of gay unions? Not that she wanted to change the fundamental definition of what is a tradtional marriage, no, but you know she has like, all kinds of people within her own family and friends circle and she also totally supports their personal right to whatever they want to do, so long as it doesn't threaten what she understands as being the traditional one woman one man marriage union.

Its not that much different from the present. Its essentially a semantic distinction - you can give a gay couple all the rights and legal recognition that pertain to marriage, but as long as a euphemism is used instead of the word "marriage".

Its a silly position to be honest.

Both tickets are in concurrence since its more more of a "rights" than "rubric" issue

I know. Its a dumb, fence-sitting position. Someone needs to have the guts to get up and say "This is just dumb. If we're giving people all the rights pertaining to marriage, that's what we should call it".

The only reason they don't is because the fundies would get up in arms about it - because the religious establishment feels it *owns* marriage, despite the fact that it was taken over by secularism decades ago.

I have a different position on all of this. I feel that the the civil union should be all that the government can give you. There should be a recognition that the government simply recognises your union and you can file taxes together, have inheiritance rights etc. Then if you want to be married, go to the church of your choosing. I mean that this would be the position of all couples, hetro and gay. In the UK we were able to fully function as unmarried partners, including getting a family visa for my partner. We had to get married in order to come here, but we wouldn't have otherwise.

[luckytxn 2,264]

I did like the Reagan analogies spoken by Palin. Nice touch.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Andrew Sullivan isn't really a "lefty" BTW.

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

I had to listen to the debate and not watch it again. I am surprised that Palin didn't blow it. Biden did well but hit no homeruns for sure. Palin actually did well. Give it to Biden overall.

Guess the attacks are gonna have to get even more frenzied on Palin to have any hope to stop McCain.

not really, moving the focus back to JMC and his policies will not help his cause in this economic cliamate.

[metta 0]

Andrew Sullivan isn't really a "lefty" BTW.

True. A conservative who turned "Kool"

[luckytxn 2,264]

I had to listen to the debate and not watch it again. I am surprised that Palin didn't blow it. Biden did well but hit no homeruns for sure. Palin actually did well. Give it to Biden overall.

Guess the attacks are gonna have to get even more frenzied on Palin to have any hope to stop McCain.

not really, moving the focus back to JMC and his policies will not help his cause in this economic cliamate.

You mean where they should be? To the two candidates that people will vote for? How rediculous

[VisaJourneyLady 33]

I did like the Reagan analogies spoken by Palin. Nice touch.

especially the 'Regan' quote about the city upon a hill

Here's the wiki:

City upon a hill is a phrase that is associated with John Winthrop's sermon "A Model of Christian Charity," given in 1630. The phrase is derived from the metaphor of Salt and Light in the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus given in the Gospel of Matthew

....

Winthrop believed that all nations had a covenant with God, and that because England had violated its religious covenant, the Puritans must leave the country. This was an expression of the Puritan belief that the Church of England had fallen from grace by accepting Catholic rituals. John Winthrop claimed that the Puritans forged a new, special agreement with God, like that between God and the people of Israel. However, unlike the Separatists (such as the Pilgrims), the Puritans remained nominally a part of the Anglican church in hopes that it could be purified from within. Winthrop believed that by purifying Christianity in the New World, his followers would serve as an example to the Old World for building a model Protestant community.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What did the conservatives think about her also supporting legislative acceptance of gay unions? Not that she wanted to change the fundamental definition of what is a tradtional marriage, no, but you know she has like, all kinds of people within her own family and friends circle and she also totally supports their personal right to whatever they want to do, so long as it doesn't threaten what she understands as being the traditional one woman one man marriage union.

Its not that much different from the present. Its essentially a semantic distinction - you can give a gay couple all the rights and legal recognition that pertain to marriage, but as long as a euphemism is used instead of the word "marriage".

Its a silly position to be honest.

Both tickets are in concurrence since its more more of a "rights" than "rubric" issue

I know. Its a dumb, fence-sitting position. Someone needs to have the guts to get up and say "This is just dumb. If we're giving people all the rights pertaining to marriage, that's what we should call it".

The only reason they don't is because the fundies would get up in arms about it - because the religious establishment feels it *owns* marriage, despite the fact that it was taken over by secularism decades ago.

I have a different position on all of this. I feel that the the civil union should be all that the government can give you. There should be a recognition that the government simply recognises your union and you can file taxes together, have inheiritance rights etc. Then if you want to be married, go to the church of your choosing. I mean that this would be the position of all couples, hetro and gay. In the UK we were able to fully function as unmarried partners, including getting a family visa for my partner. We had to get married in order to come here, but we wouldn't have otherwise.

Yeah but we have non-religious marriage ceremonies - so the idea that "marriage" is somehow the province of the religious establishment isn't really accurate, and hasn't been for many years. I guess I don't see the distinction - the argument still comes down to a point of semantics. If you have all the tax benefits, inheritance and other civil rights pertaining to a marriage - calling it something else seems superfluous.

[IAMX 3,055]

I got to see/hear most of it on CNN.com before I left work. I thought both of them sucked, but the one thing that really stood out was Palin's inability to answer a damn question directly. It's like she was coached beforehand to have a few answers and, regardless of the question, stick to certain overly simplistic buzzwords or talking points. Support the troops, John Mccain's (insert plan here) rules, yadda yadda.

What I'd have liked to know is on the gay marriage issue -- do you think you need to agree with every right or law passed? For instance, who says she has to like gays getting married? I mean this is a no brainer, I'd just have liked to see them asked real questions, or something that would make them actually explain things a bit.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

A two term gov vs. 36 yrs in the senate is no match. Palin did good for the level she is at but this debate seems more like a PR stunt than anything. I agree it wasn't a debate, but more publicity time for the popularity competition. I've had to watch more interviews on the candidates then I care to admit and serious journalist ask the tougher questions and get the real responses from them. Try the 60 minute interviews if you want the real meat not this "debate"/debacle. bleh.

From this I observed that Palin is a party puppet and Biden has a mature wisdom.

There are loads of issues with either side. Personally I'd rather have a Harvard graduate for President when we're facing this financial crisis because of the connections this man is going to have with some of the most brilliant minds. I don't envy the person that gets elected with the mess they are going to have to navigate, nor am I looking forward to the work that we're all going to have to do now.