***Official first VP debate for '08 election....

[Tubbs]

Originally Posted by QX1Z

I believe McCain is the weak link in the McCain/Palin ticket.

Really? I mean... really?

[StefanZ]

JOE BIDEN’S 14 LIES TONIGHT

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.



2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.



3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”



4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.



5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.



6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.



7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.



9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.



10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.



11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.



12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.




13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”



14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

[wynd d z33]

anyone started any polls on here?

[Blk03G35]

Is there a quick writeup of the debate? Had the dodger game on at the bar and OH BABY

[chewietobbacca]

Go Dodgers!

[chewietobbacca]

STill 61-39 on foxnews btw

[mavericck]

Did anyone else notice all of the Israel ass kissing? What's up with every politician in our government having to pay homage to Israel?

[Luv Mntrl]

...and it's NOT "Joe Six Pack", IT'S "Joe Beer Belly!"

[skooly]

Palin is all style, no substance. Instead of answering the questions put to her, she recited memorized 'talking points' that had no bearing on the question. At other times, her answers were a mash of cliche expressions all jammed together. Her answer to the question about the Vice Presidency, in particular, was horrible. However, her delivery was poised and she did not make any major blunders. If you value image over substance, she is your VP.

Biden was solid on the issues, but he was a slow starter and lacked energy initially. After the first 30 minutes, he improved, and the moment where he choked up showed genuine emotion. Biden's delivery was smooth, his answers were on point, he didn't attack Palin personally, and he didn't make any blunders. Biden is your VP if you value substance over style.

[bassholic]

StefanZ now that you have the lies, could you please post the truth, the rebuttal, to Joe's lies.

[Sizzle]

Originally Posted by StefanZ

JOE BIDEN’S 14 LIES TONIGHT

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

More Tax Deceptions
August 8, 2008
Updated: August 12, 2008
McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again.
Summary
McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals.
A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

The question that sparked the controversy at Monday's debate seemed simple enough: Would the candidates for president be willing to meet, within their first year in office, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3409544&page=1
Stefan, please produce evidence where he said "unconditionally". A year is plenty of time for low level diplomacy as he clarified after the debate.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

Biden flip/flopped on this issue just like McCain did.

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

None pointed out that on March 29, 2007, McCain himself voted against H.R. 1591, an emergency spending bill that would have funded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and would have provided more than $1 billion in additional funds to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Senate passed H.R. 1591 by a margin of 51-47. Once the bill's conference report was agreed to by the House, the Senate again passed the measure on April 26, 2007, by a vote of 51-46. McCain did not vote on that version of the bill. By contrast, Obama voted for it on both occasions. President Bush vetoed the bill, citing its provision for a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806040002

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

Again, he is definitely playing politics here. Not unusual for a politician.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

All politicians distort records. Check out John McCain's scathing rebuke from the very source you cite.

Off Base on Sex Ed
September 10, 2008
Updated: September 18, 2008
A McCain campaign ad claims Obama's "one accomplishment" was a bill to teach sex ed to kindergarten kids. Don't believe it.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...on_sex_ed.html

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

One issue that hasn’t gotten nearly the widespread attention it deserves is that in the context of John McCain’s overall policy for steep tax cuts for high-income Americans he’s also proposing a very significant tax increase on the broad group of people who receive health insurance through their employers. Specifically, at the moment compensation you receive from your employer in the form of money is subject to income tax, but compensation you receive from your employer in the form of employer contributions to health insurance premiums is not taxed. McCain proposes to change this and start subjecting those benefits to taxation. Some people, obviously, don’t have employer provided health insurance in which case this won’t make any difference to them. But for those of us who do get insurance through work, this is a very big increase.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar..._tax_hike.php8.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

Petraeus and McKiernan say no surge in Afghanistan
Posted by Max Bergmann

This week General McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan, and General David Petraeus made an obvious point: “Afghanistan is not Iraq.”

Both insisted that the challenges in Afghanistan are very different than the ones in Iraq and therefore require a very different strategy and approach. McKiernan said “What I don’t think is needed – the word I don’t use in Afghanistan is the word surge” and General Petraeus explained that every situation is “unique.” This is in stark contrast to the approach advocated by Senator McCain, who has insisted on applying the same “surge” plan that was adopted in Iraq to Afghanistan.
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008...us-and-mc.html

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

Lobbyist Hired by Freddie Mac to Work on McCain Is Now Senator's Aide

By Matthew Mosk and David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 3, 2008; Page A09
When mortgage giant Freddie Mac feared several years ago that Sen. John McCain was too outspoken on the issue of executive pay, it pinpointed a lobbyist known for his closeness to McCain and hired him to work with the senator.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100203812.html

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

You're speaking incoherently on this one. Can you re-phrase?

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

Obama made his stance clear. It's between 200 and 250k...
No tax increase if earning under $250K; tax cuts under $75K

Q: Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year?
CLINTON: I will let the taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year go back to the rates that they were paying in the 1990s.
Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?
OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to $1,000 worth of relief.
Q: You both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 and $200,000.
OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it. But it would be between $200,000 and $250,000.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

Fair enough, but so what?

REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

That's not what he said. he said middle class americans, not "americans".

[StefanZ]

Originally Posted by Sizzle

[b]


More Tax Deceptions
August 8, 2008
Updated: August 12, 2008
McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again.
Summary
McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals.
A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway.
[/color]

Not only is the ad true, but in point of fact, Obama is attempting to create the impression that he is looking to tax only the rich. People making less than 6 figures are not rich. And your last point assumes that he'll actually remain where his plan is now. I have damn good reason to not believe that at all, because his expenditures cannot be covered unless the middle class is taxed. Obama is a high tax and spender.

The question that sparked the controversy at Monday's debate seemed simple enough: Would the candidates for president be willing to meet, within their first year in office, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3409544&page=1
Stefan, please produce evidence where he said "unconditionally". A year is plenty of time for low level diplomacy as he clarified after the debate.

I heard him say it! Me...I did! Live! He's done it more than once!

After eight years of “disastrous” Bush administration policy, “It is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions,” he said, adding that the time and place would be of his choosing.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may.../na-campaign24

Biden flip/flopped on this issue just like McCain did.

That's a rebuttal?

There's a difference between McCain's position and Obama/Biden's. It's clear in watching which one is lipservice and which one is not. Obama still attached a sh!tload of qualifiers to his 'drill for oil', and people are still confused and skeptical of his position, considering his voting record.

It's obvious that Obama's shift is lipservice, and a response to McCain's pragmatism. When Obama's polling shifted, Obama shifted. McCain didn't have to do that. He led on this issue.

None pointed out that on March 29, 2007, McCain himself voted against H.R. 1591, an emergency spending bill that would have funded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and would have provided more than $1 billion in additional funds to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Senate passed H.R. 1591 by a margin of 51-47. Once the bill's conference report was agreed to by the House, the Senate again passed the measure on April 26, 2007, by a vote of 51-46. McCain did not vote on that version of the bill. By contrast, Obama voted for it on both occasions. President Bush vetoed the bill, citing its provision for a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806040002

Of course. Obama wants a timetable, which is an asinine strategy, and McCain does not, because he understand that. So does Bush. I don't see how your point is a rebuttal. It's a reinforcement. The major difference is that Obama constantly presses for a timeline, which as I've said is asinine, and McCain will not allow one.

Again, he is definitely playing politics here. Not unusual for a politician.

Except if McCain did it, you'd be screaming, instead of apologizing and rationalizing. It only takes a scoche of insight to understand that Democrats hate how 'dirty' coal plants are. It offends their sensibilities.

We don't get where we are with an energy squeeze in this country without Democrats, so it should be no surprise that two of the most liberal Democrats would be central in the opposition to these types of conventional (and technologically improving) energy sources. They think their use retards the arrival of alternative energy - that's because they do not understand how vanguard technologies arrive on the market.

All politicians distort records. Check out John McCain's scathing rebuke from the very source you cite.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...on_sex_ed.html

Hold on: you try to refute a claim on one subject with a totally different subject? haha

I happen to be more familiar with that one than most people. Here's an excerpt from that actual bill:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS.

Full text of the bill

Unlike the weak defenses to support of this bill that have been offered, there is no provision in this bill that claims that the K classes will only be taught about "inappropriate touching". That was their backtracking, and they made it up. Lines 13-17 of Section 4 explain that all students will be taught that.

One issue that hasn’t gotten nearly the widespread attention it deserves is that in the context of John McCain’s overall policy for steep tax cuts for high-income Americans he’s also proposing a very significant tax increase on the broad group of people who receive health insurance through their employers. Specifically, at the moment compensation you receive from your employer in the form of money is subject to income tax, but compensation you receive from your employer in the form of employer contributions to health insurance premiums is not taxed. McCain proposes to change this and start subjecting those benefits to taxation. Some people, obviously, don’t have employer provided health insurance in which case this won’t make any difference to them. But for those of us who do get insurance through work, this is a very big increase.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar..._tax_hike.php8.

HA! It's a good thing I understand this issue very well also! That is not what McCain's plan is: his plan is to create a 'wash' with the money received - $5000 for the payor - offsets these taxes, but improves the payor's position! ThinkProgress is either lying about this characterization, or is just wrong.

[StefanZ]

Petraeus and McKiernan say no surge in Afghanistan
Posted by Max Bergmann

This week General McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan, and General David Petraeus made an obvious point: “Afghanistan is not Iraq.”

Both insisted that the challenges in Afghanistan are very different than the ones in Iraq and therefore require a very different strategy and approach. McKiernan said “What I don’t think is needed – the word I don’t use in Afghanistan is the word surge” and General Petraeus explained that every situation is “unique.” This is in stark contrast to the approach advocated by Senator McCain, who has insisted on applying the same “surge” plan that was adopted in Iraq to Afghanistan.
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2008...us-and-mc.html

? The claim wasn't that Afghanistan and Iraq are alike, but that principles which worked in one case could work in the other. That doesn't mean that these principles aren't going to be found in a different strategy, for crissakes. McCain never suggested that the same surge plan be applied. As a rebuttal, that was terrible.

This is a clear revulsion to the fact that the Surge worked in Iraq, and Dems were clearly caught on the wrong side of that assessment. It's clear that if we increase our presence in Afghanistan, and engage in strategies like forming relations with the Pashtun, that we will have similar success.

Can you refute that? Of course not: it's common sense, and what pretty much every military advisor is saying.

Lobbyist Hired by Freddie Mac to Work on McCain Is Now Senator's Aide

By Matthew Mosk and David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 3, 2008; Page A09
When mortgage giant Freddie Mac feared several years ago that Sen. John McCain was too outspoken on the issue of executive pay, it pinpointed a lobbyist known for his closeness to McCain and hired him to work with the senator.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100203812.html

Obama received 141 times the money from Freddie Mac that McCain did. McCain received, IIRC, $893. Obama received $126,000. McCain chose to hir a guy that Freddie Mac sent to bend him to their will? And did it work?

Perhaps McCain liked the guy. Perhaps the guy felt dirty toting a corrupt organization's laundry, and wanted out. McCain could certainly use the intelligence on Obama and Freddie and Fannie that this bloke could provide, right? Either way, your claim: weaksauce.



Regardless, here's a fact that dwarfs what you attempt to portray here: Obama has 3 senior policy advisors from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae on his campaign advisory board, the foremost among them is Franklin Raines, a man who should be in jail over this fiasco, but instead was awarded a prestigious position within the Obama campaign. Jim Johnson and Jamie Gorelick (remember her from fcuking up intelligence channels? She's bad news - she fcuks up everything she touches!) are the other two. Both corrupt and dirty. Why are they advisors?

You're speaking incoherently on this one. Can you re-phrase?

Biden claimed that McCain was "dead wrong" on Iraq, but Biden's vote mirrored McCain's on the Iraq effort, and the only thing they differed on was the Surge. McCain said it would work, and Biden didn't.

That makes Biden's claim absolutely false. He was the one who was "dead wrong".

Obama made his stance clear. It's between 200 and 250k...
No tax increase if earning under $250K; tax cuts under $75K

Q: Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year?
CLINTON: I will let the taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year go back to the rates that they were paying in the 1990s.
Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?
OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to $1,000 worth of relief.
Q: You both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 and $200,000.
OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it. But it would be between $200,000 and $250,000.

In your own rebuttal of my point #1, you yourself point out how Obama lies about it. You yourself admit that if you're single, you'll start paying more above $42K, and if you're a single mom, you'll pay more @ $62K! And that's if we believe that Obama won't pull a Clinton, where he said "I've worked harder than I ever have in my life, and I just couldn't prevent raising taxes more than I thought!". Remember that?

Fair enough, but so what?

So: Biden lied about it. It doesn't include economic stimulus. That's pretty important!

That's not what he said. he said middle class americans, not "americans".

Show me the transcript, because I heard "Americans".

Either way: that was a whole lot of effort you put into some very weak refutations, all of which I pretty easily rebuffed here.

[StefanZ]

Originally Posted by skooly

Palin is all style, no substance. Instead of answering the questions put to her, she recited memorized 'talking points' that had no bearing on the question. At other times, her answers were a mash of cliche expressions all jammed together. Her answer to the question about the Vice Presidency, in particular, was horrible. However, her delivery was poised and she did not make any major blunders. If you value image over substance, she is your VP.

Biden was solid on the issues, but he was a slow starter and lacked energy initially. After the first 30 minutes, he improved, and the moment where he choked up showed genuine emotion. Biden's delivery was smooth, his answers were on point, he didn't attack Palin personally, and he didn't make any blunders. Biden is your VP if you value big government over small government.

Fixed.

[TSG-Z]

Let me grab my popcorn, this is gonna be better than all the debates combined!

[bassholic]

^StefanZ preaches to hear himself and validate his own opinions.

[JAM3Z]

Originally Posted by 1337

She is a 'hillbilly', God help us if McCain wins and gets the heart attack. I think Wall Street would sink 1200 points just from the news.

God help us if Obama wins.

[StefanZ]

Originally Posted by bassholic

^StefanZ preaches to hear himself and validate his own opinions.

Then you must just be validating that you're a jackass by trying to flame here, aren't you?



I responded to a post. If you cannot address the post, do not attempt to insult me. I suggest, if you have nothing to say, you go buy an "I'm a conservative!" pin, as it is customary to adopt a position you cannot refute.

[lophix]

Originally Posted by StefanZ

Then you must just be validating that you're a jackass by trying to flame here, aren't you?



I responded to a post. If you cannot address the post, do not attempt to insult me. I suggest, if you have nothing to say, you go buy an "I'm a conservative!" pin, as it is customary to adopt a position you cannot refute.

[JAM3Z]

Originally Posted by mavericck

Did anyone else notice all of the Israel ass kissing? What's up with every politician in our government having to pay homage to Israel?

I also noticed this. I for one don't give a rat's ass about Israel, and it angers me slightly to see all that untoward ass kissing.