Sponsored Links

[AuthorMusician]

Yep, it's really simple:

What do you think about the VP debate, 2012?

[Amlord]

Here is FactCheck.org's analysis of the debate.

They do a good job pointing out who was fibbing, lying and misleading. Though, "the reformer" argument is debatable... Clinton said that many in Congress call him a reformer. She never said he was or that the administration said he was. Whether or not they felt he was a reformer is certainly subject to speculation, but the Obama Administration never called him a reformer.

I find it utterly unbelievable that "FactCheck.org" didn't point out perhaps the most obvious lie of all: Joe Biden said that he voted AGAINST the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, saying that we couldn't afford them. He voted FOR both wars.

At one time, FactCheck was better than this. Now?

[Ted]

well they did nail Obama/Biden on some of the Medicare cuts. we were told that the cut would not change benefits but were just because those greedy insurance companies were "overcharging - from the FC

Medicare Advantage plans, offered by private insurers, have been paid more on average than traditional fee-for-service Medicare, 9 percent more in 2010. The health care law reduces those extra payments over time to bring Medicare Advantage payments in line with traditional Medicare. As a result, those plans could shed extra benefits that they now offer seniors — so they are expected to attract fewer seniors. The chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimated a 50 percent lower enrollment — from 14.8 million seniors to 7.4 million — in 2017, compared with what would have happened without the law.

and they nailed Biden on the tax cut they claimed was going to be for the rich

Biden falsely claimed that Romney has “another tax cut coming” that “will, in fact, give … $250,000 a year” to millionaires and “raise taxes” on middle-income families by $2,000 a year. That’s not true. Biden is citing the work of a nonpartisan group that has said the Obama campaign has misinterpreted its study

what got me was they didn't even touch the lie about the Obama tax increase for people who make 250K and Up. Biden said "million $ and up" and just for a few thousand families.

actually its 2,5000,000 families and the money raised is insignificant to even the deficit....

This post has been edited by Ted: Oct 12 2012, 06:10 PM

[Dingo]

Second debate transcript.

Ryan referring to Afghanistan.

We don't want to lose the gains we've gotten. We want to make sure that the Taliban does not come back in and give al- Qaida a safe haven.

The Taliban aren't going anywhere. It's their home and we don't seem to be having much luck with them or our Afghan "allies" either. So what's your plan, leave American troops there forever?

[scubatim]

"[W]e weren't told they wanted more security there ... We did not know they wanted more security ..."
--- Joe Biden, at last night's debate

"The Vice President was speaking about himself and the President and the White House. He was not referring to the administration ... Obviously, he was referring to, he wasn't talking about the administration writ large, he was speaking about himself and the President and the White House."
--- Jay Carney, at this morning's WH press briefing

The above, illustrated.

Okay, this might make me a bit geekier than I thought I was, but I did watch the House Oversight Committee hearing on this very topic the day before the debate. I know I am one of about .001% of likely voters that watched this live, so go ahead and giggle at me. However, with that said, when Biden made this assertion, I was dumbfounded. It is on record now that more security was requested and not provided. I am not clear on whether it was outright denied or ignored, but the fact remains that it was requested by those on the ground and either by direct denial or omission, that security was not provided. I can't prove that Biden himself or President Obama himself had this specific request, however as a team campaigning to be reelected, it was through this administration that the additional security request went unfulfilled. The buck has to stop somewhere and someone has to take responsibility for not providing additional security in an area with a growing Al Qaeda presence on a very significant date.

Further, and I am surprised that this hasn't been brought up here, the claim that the White House was told that this was a demonstration fell flat on it's face during the hearing. Charlene Lamb was witnessing real time what was taking place and admitted on record that it wasn't a protest, but an attack.
Her written witness statement in .pdf

The attack began at approximately 9:40 pm local time. Diplomatic Security agents inside the
compound heard loud voices outside the walls, followed by gunfire and an explosion. Dozens of
attackers then launched a full-scale assault that was unprecedented in its size and intensity. They
forced their way through the pedestrian gate, and used diesel fuel to set fire to the Libyan 17th
February Brigade members’ barracks, and then proceeded towards the main building.

[Ted]

Second debate transcript.

Ryan referring to Afghanistan.

We don't want to lose the gains we've gotten. We want to make sure that the Taliban does not come back in and give al- Qaida a safe haven.

The Taliban aren't going anywhere. It's their home and we don't seem to be having much luck with them or our Afghan "allies" either. So what's your plan, leave American troops there forever?

Obviously there are branches of the Taliban and they are not a "terrorists" who want to take the country back and bring back AQ.

and yes we should leave troops there - as we have in Germany, Japan, So. Korea and 100 other places - and I agree with Ryan - Biden blew the Status of Forces agreement that could have allowed us to have a base in Iraq.

[Dingo]

and yes we should leave troops there - as we have in Germany, Japan, So. Korea and 100 other places - and I agree with Ryan - Biden blew the Status of Forces agreement that could have allowed us to have a base in Iraq.

We got out of Vietnam, lock, stock and barrel and we get along with them just fine. A token force with the agreement of their democratic governments is an apple and oranges comparison. And if they aren't baring the principal cost then I would like to know why.

Iraq didn't want us to keep a token force in Iraq. It's their government despite what you and clueless Ryan happen to think. That's the kind of thing that makes Ryan unfit to be one heart beat from the White House.

[entspeak]

That might be somewhat misleading, given everyone's perception of what a small business is, but it isn't wrong. There do appear to be numerous misstatements in this debate, but this example shows that they aren't always 'wrong'.

Okay... but deliberately misleading is not a good thing - from either camp. And this "small business" nonsense is egregious - it's been a scare tactic of the Republicans for a while now - and I think Biden handled his response to that pretty well.

money raised is insignificant to even the deficit

Well, it's exponentially more significant than cutting subsidies to NPR and PBS.

[Dontreadonme]

Obviously there are branches of the Taliban and they are not a "terrorists" who want to take the country back and bring back AQ.

I'm not what you're trying to say here. Can you clarify?

and yes we should leave troops there - as we have in Germany, Japan, So. Korea and 100 other places - and I agree with Ryan - Biden blew the Status of Forces agreement that could have allowed us to have a base in Iraq.

So much wrong here....so little time. We have left forces in other nations as staging and posturing against the Soviet threat. These forces were left in an atmosphere of relative tranquility and legitimate, stable governments.

This is not only not likely in Afghanistan, but not realistic given that we have chosen to partner with an illegitimate and corrupt regime in Kabul, thus violating the foremost tenet of Counterinsurgency. This all is irrespective of the woeful error we made in 2002 by attempting to quell a rural insurgency that posed no national security threat to the US...instead of pursuing the transnational terrorist organization that actually attacked us.

The previous Administration conducted the SOFA agreements with the equally corrupt Maliki regime. Apparently, only the Kagan's and the Bush team believed that it was assured to be revised and extended. Perhaps they should have let Maliki in on that detail. The regime in Baghdad opted to preserve internal political stability rather than continue our occupation. Unless of course, you are advocating that our forces fall under Iraqi legal jurisdiction?

Both parties have enabled disaster since 2002, and our forces have paid the price for faux patriotism. Continuing to enable it through the current election cycle is abhorrent.

[Ted]

and yes we should leave troops there - as we have in Germany, Japan, So. Korea and 100 other places - and I agree with Ryan - Biden blew the Status of Forces agreement that could have allowed us to have a base in Iraq.

We got out of Vietnam, lock, stock and barrel and we get along with them just fine. A token force with the agreement of their democratic governments is an apple and oranges comparison. And if they aren't baring the principal cost then I would like to know why.

Iraq didn't want us to keep a token force in Iraq. It's their government despite what you and clueless Ryan happen to think. That's the kind of thing that makes Ryan unfit to be one heart beat from the White House.

Out in Vietnam - ya we RAN out as the North took over - all the 38,000 dead and Billions spent down the damn drain - did you forget that? Is that the model you are looking for in Afghanistan?

Iraq should have not been given a choice - we freed them and great cost and should have demanded it - Biden blew it

[Dingo]

and yes we should leave troops there - as we have in Germany, Japan, So. Korea and 100 other places - and I agree with Ryan - Biden blew the Status of Forces agreement that could have allowed us to have a base in Iraq.

We got out of Vietnam, lock, stock and barrel and we get along with them just fine. A token force with the agreement of their democratic governments is an apple and oranges comparison. And if they aren't baring the principal cost then I would like to know why.

Iraq didn't want us to keep a token force in Iraq. It's their government despite what you and clueless Ryan happen to think. That's the kind of thing that makes Ryan unfit to be one heart beat from the White House.

Out in Vietnam - ya we RAN out as the North took over - all the 38,000 dead and Billions spent down the damn drain - did you forget that? Is that the model you are looking for in Afghanistan?

Iraq should have not been given a choice - we freed them and great cost and should have demanded it - Biden blew it

We're almost broke already because of folks like you. It turns out you and your pax America presidential spend thrifts want to take us completely off the cliff. Add on both your AGW denialism and we haven't got a chance.

The truth is Romney and Ryan are not serious contestants on the issues and don't deserve any particular respect. Take the tax issue.

Sometimes in journalism I think we take the objectivity thing too far. We think being fair means giving equal weight to both sides of every argument. But sometimes in the zeal to be objective, reporters get confused. You can't report the Obama tax plan and the Romney tax plan in the same way, because only one of them is really a plan, while the other is actually not a plan at all, but an electoral gambit.

The Romney/Ryan ticket decided, with incredible cynicism, that that they were going to promise this massive tax break, not explain how to pay for it, and then just hang on until election day, knowing that most of the political press would let it skate, or at least not take a dump all over it when explaining it to the public. Unchallenged, and treated in print and on the air as though it were the same thing as a real plan, a 20 percent tax cut sounds pretty good to most Americans. Hell, it sounds good to me.

The proper way to report such a tactic is to bring to your coverage exactly the feeling that Biden brought to the debate last night: contempt and amazement. We in the press should be offended by what Romney and Ryan are doing – we should take professional offense that any politician would try to whisk such a gigantic lie past us to our audiences, and we should take patriotic offense that anyone is trying to seize the White House using such transparently childish and dishonest tactics.

[scubatim]

and yes we should leave troops there - as we have in Germany, Japan, So. Korea and 100 other places - and I agree with Ryan - Biden blew the Status of Forces agreement that could have allowed us to have a base in Iraq.

We got out of Vietnam, lock, stock and barrel and we get along with them just fine. A token force with the agreement of their democratic governments is an apple and oranges comparison. And if they aren't baring the principal cost then I would like to know why.

Iraq didn't want us to keep a token force in Iraq. It's their government despite what you and clueless Ryan happen to think. That's the kind of thing that makes Ryan unfit to be one heart beat from the White House.

Out in Vietnam - ya we RAN out as the North took over - all the 38,000 dead and Billions spent down the damn drain - did you forget that? Is that the model you are looking for in Afghanistan?

Iraq should have not been given a choice - we freed them and great cost and should have demanded it - Biden blew it

We're almost broke already because of folks like you. It turns out you and your pax America presidential spend thrifts want to take us completely off the cliff. Add on both your AGW denialism and we haven't got a chance.

The truth is Romney and Ryan are not serious contestants on the issues and don't deserve any particular respect. Take the tax issue.

Sometimes in journalism I think we take the objectivity thing too far. We think being fair means giving equal weight to both sides of every argument. But sometimes in the zeal to be objective, reporters get confused. You can't report the Obama tax plan and the Romney tax plan in the same way, because only one of them is really a plan, while the other is actually not a plan at all, but an electoral gambit.

The Romney/Ryan ticket decided, with incredible cynicism, that that they were going to promise this massive tax break, not explain how to pay for it, and then just hang on until election day, knowing that most of the political press would let it skate, or at least not take a dump all over it when explaining it to the public. Unchallenged, and treated in print and on the air as though it were the same thing as a real plan, a 20 percent tax cut sounds pretty good to most Americans. Hell, it sounds good to me.

The proper way to report such a tactic is to bring to your coverage exactly the feeling that Biden brought to the debate last night: contempt and amazement. We in the press should be offended by what Romney and Ryan are doing – we should take professional offense that any politician would try to whisk such a gigantic lie past us to our audiences, and we should take patriotic offense that anyone is trying to seize the White House using such transparently childish and dishonest tactics.

Taibbi? Really? Why not quote Maddow or Sharpton while you are at it? Do you even take honest debate seriously, or is this site a satire for you?

[akaCG]

I thought of putting this in the "News that isn't a shock to you" thread, but ...

What Paul Ryan said in his debate closing statement, according to the New York Times final transcript:

"The choice is clear: a stagnant economy that promotes more government dependency, or a dynamic, growing economy that promotes opportunity and jobs. Mitt Romney and I will not duck the tough issues.

We will take responsibility. And we will not try to replace our founding principles; we will reapply our founding principles. The choice is clear, and the choice rests with you, and we ask you for your vote. Thank you."


What Paul Ryan actually said (at the 17 min 25 sec mark in this video clip) in his debate closing statement (bolding mine):

"The choice is clear: a stagnant economy that promotes more government dependency, or a dynamic, growing economy that promotes opportunity and jobs. Mitt Romney and I will not duck the tough issues. And we will not blame others for the next four years.

We will take responsibility. And we will not try to replace our founding principles; we will reapply our founding principles. The choice is clear, and the choice rests with you, and we ask you for your vote. Thank you."

h/t http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/20...yans-Key-Phrase



This post has been edited by akaCG: Oct 12 2012, 10:57 PM

[Dingo]

Taibbi? Really? Why not quote Maddow or Sharpton while you are at it?

Why not if they are telling the truth. Sorry to employ a word so unfamiliar to your alternative world.

This post has been edited by Dingo: Oct 12 2012, 11:11 PM

[akaCG]

Some additional thoughts on last night's debate:

...
"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength," the longshoreman cum philosopher Eric Hoffer once observed. Hoffer died in 1983, so he probably wasn't referring specifically to Joe Biden's performance in last night's debate. Still, the observation is fitting.

In addition to the vice president's boorishness, a lot of observers noted that he frequently smiled and chuckled at inappropriate times--even during a discussion of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. ... If Biden finds himself out of work in January, he may have a career ahead of him as a Fixodent pitchman.

So what's with Dr. Strangelaugh? Let's ask an evolutionary biologist. ...
...

Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239...3041594512.html

"Dr. Strangelaugh". Priceless.



This post has been edited by akaCG: Oct 12 2012, 11:16 PM

[scubatim]

Taibbi? Really? Why not quote Maddow or Sharpton while you are at it?

Why not if they are telling the truth. Sorry to employ a word so unfamiliar to your alternative world.

First, they are not telling the truth as evidenced by several non-partisan sources that can be found in any number of threads on this board.

Second, please link one post that I was not telling the truth. Please show that I am a liar. I beg you.

Third, watch the thin ice of personal attacks that you are walking on.

[Dingo]

Eric Hoffer was a good guy. He was death on true believer ideologues.

Why not surprise everyone and try out a little agenda free critical thinking?

[scubatim]

Eric Hoffer was a good guy. He was death on true believer ideologues.

Why not surprise everyone and try out a little agenda free critical thinking?

What does Hoffer have to do with this debate?

Second, what agenda am I pushing here, says one guy to another guy that insists on citing blindly partisan hacks?

[Dingo]

Please show that I am a liar. I beg you.

I have no idea whether you are a liar. Maybe you are just ideological fixated. Your lack of interest in reality is manifest all over the forum.

My suggestion is get back to topics and stop worrying about what I or anybody thinks of you. If you or I fall on our faces that will be manifest to anybody who is interested.

What does Hoffer have to do with this debate?

Take it up with CG.

[scubatim]

Please show that I am a liar. I beg you.

I have no idea whether you are a liar. Maybe you are just ideological fixated. Your lack of interest in reality is manifest all over the forum.

My suggestion is get back to topics and stop worrying about what I or anybody thinks of you. If you or I fall on our faces that will be manifest to anybody who is interested.

Truth be told, I don't like you much and in turn don't worry about what you think of me.

I also would like for you to define what my ideological fixation is, if you can. Just because I have a tendency to punch holes in your debates because you either don't provide supporting evidence for your claims, or when you do it is from biased sources, doesn't mean I have an ideological fixation.

[Dingo]

Please show that I am a liar. I beg you.

I have no idea whether you are a liar. Maybe you are just ideological fixated. Your lack of interest in reality is manifest all over the forum.

My suggestion is get back to topics and stop worrying about what I or anybody thinks of you. If you or I fall on our faces that will be manifest to anybody who is interested.

Truth be told, I don't like you much and in turn don't worry about what you think of me.

Well you keep following me around like a whining dog. Find somebody else to occupy yourself with.