The Candidates Debates

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

well, to start of with "sanctions on the financial sector" is like throwing gas on a fire. the sector is losing money, alot of money, and you want to place sanctions on them when they are weak? not a good idea.

"freeze or cap" on ceo salaries is also not a good idea, it will lead to the best businessmen fleeing the companies where their compensation is affected. we need bright leaders at these companies, and they should be paid what the market bears for their talent. a better idea is to have the shareholders rather than the board of directors set these salaries.

the bill passed on friday is not a "bailout" in the sense that companies get money for nothing. they will get money for selling assets, so no there's not "money to pay..back". likewise limiting the company's ability to recapitalize with selling new shares limits their options going forward, that should be up to the existing shareholders not the government.

limiting a companies profit only hurts their ability to reinvest in their business, as well as takes money away from the investors who own the company. that's very counter productive.

a government run health system is not an answer to the rising costs of healthcare. both obama and mccain do not propose this and there's a good reason. they both propose letting private enterprise work, although the similarities do end there.

many medical schools already have programs which pay the student's tuition for a dedication to public service post graduation. if you cap a person's salary the result is a decline in the pool of people who will go into that profession. we need more doctors not less.

Thanks for the input. Now, let me see if I can counter this in anyway to help me learn a little more about the situation

"freeze or cap" on ceo salaries is also not a good idea, it will lead to the best businessmen fleeing the companies where their compensation is affected. we need bright leaders at these companies, and they should be paid what the market bears for their talent. a better idea is to have the shareholders rather than the board of directors set these salaries.
I propose a limit on salary and make it performance based that is approved both from the Board of Directors and Shareholders, then the government would have the final say on whether to approve it or not (Kinda like Professional sports where trades and whatnots are approved by the league before a deal is done), on the flipside, I dont see how the bright leaders would be affected, because this would be across the board based on salaries above a certain set level with publicly traded companies.

the bill passed on friday is not a "bailout" in the sense that companies get money for nothing. they will get money for selling assets, so no there's not "money to pay..back". likewise limiting the company's ability to recapitalize with selling new shares limits their options going forward, that should be up to the existing shareholders not the government.
I think there needs to be complete checks and balances on this, because I see where companies will get some money from government(tax dollars) and the consumer will also pay again by higher prices or whatnots. As far as limiting shares, I am just talking about if the government was paid back with stocks as well. I say this, because I am not 100% correct, but I thought that some companies do things like this to dilute shares to compensate from giving up large chunks of stocks to outsiders, which in turn hurts shareholders with lower share prices? I am not really worried about them recapitalizing, because if they are getting this bail-out money, they should not be rewarded with being able to recapitalize off our money.


limiting a companies profit only hurts their ability to reinvest in their business, as well as takes money away from the investors who own the company. that's very counter productive.
I understand, but what if this so called luxury tax was only temporary during times like this for certain sectors that are too being counter productive for the economy. I find it very counterproductive and harsh for these oil companies to be making record profits from oil, while the economy suffers from high oil prices. It does not add up, there is a big problem with this equation. When consumer confidence and spending is low, I have never seen a complete sector register record profits quarter after quarter.

many medical schools already have programs which pay the student's tuition for a dedication to public service post graduation. if you cap a person's salary the result is a decline in the pool of people who will go into that profession. we need more doctors not less.
I think you may be right here, but I guess I am talking more about what these doctors/hospitals are charging patients.

Thanks in advance for your input, I am trying to figure out how we got in this situation with our economy.

[rabbitproof]

Early read looks like the Biden-Palin thing helped the Democrats out.

If things stay steady until Tuesday, McCain should be going into next debate down about 6 points on average vs 4 a few days ago.

[rabbitproof]

The dumbing down of the GOP

Why aren't more conservatives disgusted that their party nominated a person devoid of qualifications for the vice presidency (again)?

By Joe Conason

Reuters/Jim Young

Oct. 4, 2008 | Sarah Palin's debate performance should signal the beginning of the end of her fad. But for the moment it is worth looking at the meaning of her nomination, without the protective varnish of what conservatives usually dismiss as political correctness.

Why should we pretend not to notice when Gov. Palin's ideas make no sense? Having said last week that "it doesn't matter" whether human activity is the cause of climate change, she said in debate that she "doesn't want to argue" about the causes. It doesn't occur to her that we have to know the causes in order to address the problem. (She was very fortunate that moderator Gwen Ifill didn't ask her whether she truly believes that human beings and dinosaurs inhabited this planet simultaneously only 6,000 years ago.)

Rest of it: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/10/04/dumb/

[rabbitproof]

How do you fix something when you don't know the cause of it? You can't. This is super elementary. Would you want to work for a boss like that? Someone who tries to fix things without knowing what caused the problem?

Again, is she just being a politician (not willing to admit weakness, a weakness in and of itself and pretty common among public servants) or just obtuse? I don't think she really is less intelligent than a primate but her arguments often appear to come out of her ass even though it's her mouth that is moving.

[chumdawg]

From that same story, this is the part that rings truest to me:

Quayle deserved more pity than scorn, however, because he seemed to know that he was fighting far above his weight class. Palin evokes no such sympathy, with her jut-jawed, moose-gutting confidence in her own overrated "common sense" and her bullying insistence that only "elitists" would question her expertise.

As Biden showed quite convincingly when he spoke about his modest background and his continuing connection with Main Street, perceptive, intelligent discourse is in no way identical with elitism. Palin's phony populism is as insulting to working- and middle-class Americans as it is to American women. Why are basic diction and intellectual coherence presumed to be out of reach for "real people"?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

How do you fix something when you don't know the cause of it? You can't. This is super elementary. Would you want to work for a boss like that? Someone who tries to fix things without knowing what caused the problem?

Again, is she just being a politician (not willing to admit weakness, a weakness in and of itself and pretty common among public servants) or just obtuse? I don't think she really is less intelligent than a primate but her arguments often appear to come out of her ass even though it's her mouth that is moving.

Yeah. I mean, has she even stopped to think about her line of argument? (And no, it didn't slip unintendly out of her mouth during the debate; she said the exact same thing in the Couric interview.) Let's see...it doesn't matter if it is man-made or natural, we just have to fix it...

If it's natural as opposed to man-made, YOU CAN'T FREAKIN' FIX IT!!!!

I mean, really. Godawmighty.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

Thanks in advance for your input, I am trying to figure out how we got in this situation with our economy.

silk, you want much, much more government involvement in the private sector than I would ever wish to see.

our coutry's economic resilience is based on individual initative which is fueled by the prospect of reward. government controls on those potential rewards will dilute the initiative imo.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I am astonished at your lack of objectivity in this matter. This, and Biden just flat makes stuff up?

You and I, my friend, did not watch the same debate.

Of course you're astonished. That's because in your world, the sky is a beautiful shade of Obama.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Yeah. I mean, has she even stopped to think about her line of argument? (And no, it didn't slip unintendly out of her mouth during the debate; she said the exact same thing in the Couric interview.) Let's see...it doesn't matter if it is man-made or natural, we just have to fix it...

If it's natural as opposed to man-made, YOU CAN'T FREAKIN' FIX IT!!!!

I mean, really. Godawmighty.

I think her point was obvious. We should look to be good stewards of our environment, whether we are causing "global warming" or not.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Of course you're astonished. That's because in your world, the sky is a beautiful shade of Obama.

We're not talking about me, big boy. We're talking about you. And specifically, your ideas that Palin answered questions more directly than Biden did while Biden also just made a bunch of stuff up.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I think her point was obvious. We should look to be good stewards of our environment, whether we are causing "global warming" or not.

Before responding, I just want to make sure I have one thing straight. The way you wrote that sentence...you mean that global warming (without the quotemarks) and "global warming" (with the quotemarks) are two different things, right?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Before responding, I just want to make sure I have one thing straight. The way you wrote that sentence...you mean that global warming (without the quotemarks) and "global warming" (with the quotemarks) are two different things, right?

The quotation marks were mine and reflect my view on the subject.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

We're not talking about me, big boy. We're talking about you. And specifically, your ideas that Palin answered questions more directly than Biden did while Biden also just made a bunch of stuff up.

Now you're making stuff up. I never said she answered questions more directly than Biden did. I said that criticizing Palin for not answering questions while not criticizing Biden for the same thing reveals a lack of objectivity.

I readily agree that there were times when Palin didn't answer the question asked. This has been true of politicians in debates for as long as I can remember watching them.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Now you're making stuff up. I never said she answered questions more directly than Biden did. I said that criticizing Palin for not answering questions while not criticizing Biden for the same thing reveals a lack of objectivity.

Then I supposed I misinterpreted what you meant when you said that if someone to mock Palin for her difficulty in answering questions directly, that was fine by you because he would take the worst of it, as Biden did.

It seemed like you were comparing Biden and Palin on their answering style, and giving the nod to her.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The quotation marks were mine and reflect my view on the subject.

I see. So, we can fix the problem, which may not actually be a problem at all, by changing the behavior that may or may not have caused this thing that may or may not be a problem.

Good stewardship, indeed! I'm sorry I didn't think of it first.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Then I supposed I misinterpreted what you meant when you said that if someone to mock Palin for her difficulty in answering questions directly, that was fine by you because he would take the worst of it, as Biden did.

It seemed like you were comparing Biden and Palin on their answering style, and giving the nod to her.

When I said he took the worst of it, I'm saying I thought he lost the debate.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I see. So, we can fix the problem, which may not actually be a problem at all, by changing the behavior that may or may not have caused this thing that may or may not be a problem.

Good stewardship, indeed! I'm sorry I didn't think of it first.

No, the idea would be that whether or not you believe in global warming, we can all agree that clean air, clean water, etc. are good goals to have. Also, framing it in terms of energy policy, it is a good idea to seek energy independence whether or not you believe that gas emissionss from cars have a verifiable impact on the climate.

[Mavdog]

it is a very hollow environmentalism to speak glowingly about protecting our air and water while at the same time saying we do not need to reduce our emissions.

[GermanDunk]

To be honest. Shouldn´t the rep party provide a better vice than that thing. Palin thing ?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it is a very hollow environmentalism to speak glowingly about protecting our air and water while at the same time saying we do not need to reduce our emissions.

My reading of McCain's platform indicates that he does support reducing emissions.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

silk, you want much, much more government involvement in the private sector than I would ever wish to see.

our coutry's economic resilience is based on individual initative which is fueled by the prospect of reward. government controls on those potential rewards will dilute the initiative imo.

You may be right but once a company reaches a point to where they control a large percent of a sector, there needs to be some type of checks and balances of some type. I just feel that the old way just has not worked too well. The Financial, Insurance and Oil sector has gotten us into this mess. The lack of control has lead to greed, corruption and the economy coming to a crawl. I dont see any of these sectors regulating themselves, so why not add more government control over these three sectors? Once again, you may be right on too much government is not a good thing, but as we see too less government in those three sectors is a mess.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

My reading of McCain's platform indicates that he does support reducing emissions.

john mccain believes global warming is a consequence of our burning of fossil fuels. sarah palin? apparently not.

if a candidate doesn't agree with the connection between burning fossil fuels and the emissions warming our planet, how can anyone expect that person to proritize reducing those emissions?

one can't.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

No, the idea would be that whether or not you believe in global warming, we can all agree that clean air, clean water, etc. are good goals to have. Also, framing it in terms of energy policy, it is a good idea to seek energy independence whether or not you believe that gas emissionss from cars have a verifiable impact on the climate.

KG, is it not fair to interpret Palin's statements on the matter in this way:

--Global warming does exist. (In fact, Alaskans know this best, because they are up there by the ice and all.)
--Man's activities may have something to do with it, though we certainly can't attribute all of man's activities to global warming. (Will someone please teach this woman how to use the word "attribute"?)
--I'm not interested in debating the exact causes of global warming. (Or if you prefer, "global warming.")
--What we need to worry about is how to fix it.

Any problems with that interpretation of her words?

[ShaggyDirk]

can't wait for SNL tonight. this whole clusterf87c is a joke.

[dirno2000]

Originally Posted by ShaggyDirk

can't wait for SNL tonight. this whole clusterf87c is a joke.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_131964.html

[chumdawg]

That was pretty insulting, the way they portrayed Biden there.

[Silk Smoov]

Did anyone just hear about Palin Misquotes Albright: "Place In Hell Reserved For Women Who Don't Support Other Women"

The real quote is, "There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't help other women."

Could you all believe she said this???? Not only that, she says she just read that quote on Saturday. I cant believe Palin, she now wants to send all women who dont vote for her to hell. This has to be the lowest point in her very short career. Now, I wonder how people will spin this to where the media is attacking her for such a small thing.

Oh, as I was typing this I just saw that SNL skit on this last debate. It has to be the funniest thing I have every seen on this presidential race. I just spit on my computer laughing...LMAO!!!

[Silk Smoov]

This Union President hit a homerun on this subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QIGJTHdH50


I thought Richard was very sincere and this is exactly on point.

[dude1394]

Michael Totten on Biden's debate performance.

MICHAEL TOTTEN:

In Thursday night’s vice presidential debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin, Biden said the strangest and most ill-informed thing I have ever heard about Lebanon in my life. . . . Nobody – nobody – has ever kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Not the United States. Nor France. Not Israel. And not the Lebanese. Nobody.

Joe Biden has literally no idea what he’s talking about.

It’s too bad debate moderator Gwen Ifill didn’t catch him and ask a follow up question: When did the United States and France kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon? . . .

Like many who watched the debate, I was bracing myself for Palin to say something off-putting about foreign policy. She’s the one who needed the crash course, allegedly; Biden is supposedly Mr. Foreign Policy. He’s supposed to be the experienced elder statesman Senator Barack Obama chose to help him govern and fill in some of his knowledge and experience gaps. He’s supposed to know far more about foreign policy than she does.

[Dtownsfinest]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Biden just makes stuff up. Makes stuff up. That's preferable to you? You are more scared of an obvious dodge than a sincere lie?

Where's the sincere lies? I prefer neither but I only heard one person dodging answers. I heard no lies.




Ahahhahahahah. He must've been democrat. Who's raising these kids? Clearly not Palin. God forbid McCain gets sick in office and she has to be in charge of a whole country. She can't even be in charge of her own kids.

[ShaggyDirk]

she needs to whip out that bible belt and go to work!! :]

[dude1394]

Looks like she was watching theMessiah flipping off hillary.

[dude1394]

Ah Obama and his Mentor...BEFORE theMessiah ran for office.

[dude1394]

So while Ayers was stomping on the flag, talking about how he didn't bomb enough...theMessiah was...

Deborah Harrington, president of the Woods Fund, a philanthropic organization in Chicago, said Obama was a director from 1994 through 2001. That overlaps Ayers’ time as a director by three years. It also means Obama served with Ayers for the final months of 2001, after Ayers made his comments to the New York Times.

As I said, Obama (and the democrats) don't think that Ayers is out of touch, he's right there with the Maggot Moore and the other liberals.

[Mavdog]

well, if they were on the same board at the same time, CLEARLY they think alike...

ask yourself, does every person who works on boards together all think alike?

does every person who worked on the board think just like bill ayers?

if you answered yes to those questions, please try to come back to reality. soon.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

KG, is it not fair to interpret Palin's statements on the matter in this way:

--Global warming does exist. (In fact, Alaskans know this best, because they are up there by the ice and all.)
--Man's activities may have something to do with it, though we certainly can't attribute all of man's activities to global warming. (Will someone please teach this woman how to use the word "attribute"?)
--I'm not interested in debating the exact causes of global warming. (Or if you prefer, "global warming.")
--What we need to worry about is how to fix it.

Any problems with that interpretation of her words?

palin has a problem, she doesn't make any sense.

Obama, McCain and Biden have supported legislation to limit climate-warming carbon emissions, and on Thursday, Palin said she too favored this. But she also linked increased domestic oil production to the fight against global warming.

"As we rely more and more on other countries that don't care as much about the climate as we do, we're allowing them to produce and to emit and even pollute more than America would ever stand for," she said, when talking about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

yikes. that's about as daft a position as I've ever heard.

to reduce greenhouse gases, america should burn more of our own fossil fuels, because if we do, then other countries would have all the other fossil fuels we didn't burn available for them to burn.

uh huh, that's a heck of a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions....it reminds me of something that tina fey would say playing sarah palin, but in this case it's real not comedy.

at least it's not INTENDED to be humorous.

[Dtownsfinest]

There's so many nicknames out there i've lost touch with whom they actually refer to. Who's the messiah?

[dude1394]

Uh oh...what do you call global warming that isn't global warming????

Now, wasn't Joe Biden just talking about how certain he was that man is responsible for global warming?
What about the global cooling, then?
The Astute Bloggers and ICECAP.us reported on the recent cooling:

Many scary stories have been written about the dangers of catastrophic global warming, allegedly due to increased atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) from the combustion of fossil fuels. But is the world really catastrophically warming? NO. And is the warming primarily caused by humans? NO.

Since just January 2007, the world has cooled so much that ALL the global warming over the past three decades has disappeared! This is confirmed by a plot of actual global average temperatures from the best available source, weather satellite data that shows there has been NO net global warming since the satellites were first launched in 1979.


Since there was global cooling from ~1940 to ~1979, this means there has been no net warming since ~1940, in spite of an ~800% increase in human emissions of carbon dioxide. This indicates that the recent warming trend was natural, and CO2 is an insignificant driver of global warming.

Furthermore, the best fit polynomial shows a strong declining trend. Are we seeing the beginning of a natural cooling cycle? YES.

[dude1394]

Nah...the media isn't voting for anyone...completely neutral...vetting out the democrats with vigor and tenacity.... maybe we vig...or some ten... ah who's kidding who, they are on the payroll.
http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/Me...en_a_pass.html

Media gives Palin the third degree, Biden a pass

Examiner Editorial 10/6/08
Political elites scorn Middle America’s Sarah Palin. The mainstream media has invested astronomical resources digging into every crevice of Alaska for dirt and parsing every word that comes from her lips while seeking to embarrass her. But they have carried out precious little vigilance against her Democratic counterpart Joe Biden, despite 36 years of easily available records. Despite the obstacles, Palin emerged from Thursday night’s debate with 84 percent of respondents in one poll saying she had exceeded expectations (easy enough perhaps, since she could hardly have entered the debate with lower expectations, thanks to the media critics). And she was judged “more likable” than Biden by a 54-36 margin in the same survey.

After the debate, Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard detailed 14 clear factual errors by Biden. Palin had some mis-statements, too, but don’t expect the media mavens to spend a dime holding Biden accountable for his errors. Yet, as the Power Line blog noted before the debate, the same media works overtime to trip up Palin on the mildest technicalities, such as when she told CBS’ Katie Couric that the Alaska governor must worry about the many times Russian planes cross into American (Alaskan) airspace. The Associated Press called foul because no Russian planes had done so during her governorship – before acknowledging that she had been briefed when Russian planes entered an area just outside official airspace called the “outer air defense identification zone.” As an error, that’s something like you saying tom-A-to and me saying tom-ah-to.

Meanwhile, long before Barack Obama chose Biden as his running mate, The Examiner detailed how Biden scored zero on class-action plaintiffs lawsuit abuse votes monitored by the National Association of Manufacturers. More recently, the indefatigable editorial page of The Wall Street Journal laid out questions Biden should answer regarding his slavish devotion to class-action plaintiffs’ attorneys. The Journal noted the curious fact that the Delaware senator’s top campaign contributor is a law firm from Madison County, Illinois – among the worst “tort hells” in the country. The same firm has been busily transferring its lawsuits to Delaware ever since new Illinois judges started cracking down on lawsuit abuse. A neutral observer might conclude that Biden is too obeisant to one of the special interests Palin criticized in the debate. But will anybody in the media ever ask him about these issues?

[aquaadverse]

I personally thought Palin did badly in the debate. Biden left a bunch of easy targets.

Like when you raise the cost of business enough the business goes elsewhere.

Or if his friend would have liked to have a temporary federal tax holiday on gas, or if it would be "meaningless" and "pointless" to him.

Or if Biden could defend NAFTA. Or asking if the Community Reinvestment Act had any impact on this current mess.

Or if the value of domestically produced oil has any value in lowering our trade imbalance and making us less dependent even if the price is the same.

She was doing her Maverick spiel and Biden was basically blustering unchallenged bumper stickerisms.

I was shocked, frankly at the glee by Repugs. A couple of good jabs at Biden could have produced some interesting responses. He was close to patting her on the head and telling her to not worry her pretty lil' head about such matters.

I had a lower opinion of the ticket after this performance. Not enough to change my vote, though. I'll take McCain needing to croak over a sure neophyte.

Needs a strong performance from the Fightin' Chipmunk on Tuesday. Unchallenged "Taxcuts for Big Oil and Wallstreet" statements will finish him. In the first debate he said you need to keep the cost of doing business low enough to stay competitive on a global scale and drifted off on something else immediately.

He has the knowledge and experience to make Obama start stuttering and flailing around. Take the gloves off and challenge him when he starts on the Deregulation keening. Ask him how the inability of the current Democratic Congress to accomplish anything will change if he is elected, and why have they failed the country on the current crisis. Make the "four more years" seem like the stupid mantra it is, and ask if the "8 years of failed Bush policies" shouldn't really be 6 years. Strap it on, it's the last chance.