Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Duh Debates (Page 10)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  20  21  22   
Author Topic: Duh Debates
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
D.W.,

I am talking about debate polls which don't really settle in instantly.

In the larger context, Joe is the gift that just keeps on giving. What he offered in enthusiasm, he subtracted in the fact-check arena, and Barry will bear that burden.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:

He certainly did not sink the Romney ship. That success does not translate into a win by any measure. Biden’s dementia or sage condescension aside noel. [Smile]

Think of it like this:

George Washington won the Battle of Long Island.... because he did not allow the Continental Army to be destroyed.

Now, in reality, George Washington lost the Battle of Long Island. But because he was able to get away, his army was able to fight another day.

Same thing goes for Quintus Fabius Maximus Cunctator after being made Dictator the first time. He never beat Hannibal in a battle. But he beat him by now allowing Hannibal to destroy the Roman Army.....again....

If you accept that Ryan could not really effect the Romney campaign by doing anything other then screwing the pooch, then you must accept that he accomplished his mission. Maybe thats not a "win", but that is what victories are built upon.

Same thing goes for Biden. If he stopped the bleeding and rallied the democratic host, then he won. He didn't have to "beat" Ryan in any substantitive manner. He just had to show spirit.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant,

I have not been working from an assumption that Obama troops needed to be rallied, but that independents needed recruitment. In that scenario, Biden was absent from the battle, and compromised the strategic position of his commanding general.

We will not have to wait much longer to see which evaluation comes closest to actuality.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Grant,

I have not been working from an assumption that Obama troops needed to be rallied, but that independents needed recruitment. In that scenario, Biden was absent from the battle, and compromised the strategic position of his commanding general.

We will not have to wait much longer to see which evaluation comes closest to actuality.

I respectfully disagree, Noel. I think the democrats seriously needed to be rallied. Part of what draws the independant last minute deciding voter is the spirit and enthusiasm from the parties. The Democrats basically pooped all over themselves after the first debate, while the Republicans took a mouth full of viagra and 50ccs of vitamin B-12 to the jugular, and you've seen the poll numbers afterwards. The Obama campaign was bleeding bad, and they needed someone to rally them.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You could be right about the discouragement on the left. I always assume that the faithful core remains intact. If they did break ranks, and if their unity has an effect upon independents, then a Biden draw might have the effect that you suggest.

I do not believe this debate was a draw, but your analysis does not require anything more than a perceived victory among the faithful. If Obama can not make the case to independents for a second term, then I don’t think that a partisan infusion of Geritol will make much difference. Like I mentioned, we will all know soon enough.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Chael,

"Specifics will not be presented because they would be disagreed on or attacked by ideological opponents?"...

Yes.

Fagh. If the details can stand up to scrutiny, they should be presented for scrutiny. If they cannot, that is telling.

You said later that people get the government they deserve (an old chestnut)--and added that Romney actually saying straight-out how he would accomplish what he wants to do would make you think him to be politically naive. Have you considered that it is such cynicism (and some of my best friends are cynics, so please do not think I am casting asparagus [Wink] ) which perpetuates a political system in which these debates are nothing better than political theater? In other words, that people might actually be more thoughtful than they are given credit for being, and that while they may not decide as you or as I might hope them to, they are nonetheless capable of taking in data and reaching conclusions?

Please forgive me for my rant. The tenor of your post reminded me of some of the comments given by various talking heads after the first presidential debate, which were along the lines of 'don't give people so much information; you'll just confuse them!' Tremendously insulting. We say we wish we had a more informed electorate, and then we do as much as we can to hide the information from them, and we blame them for making us do it. Fagh.

quote:

"No, principles are in evidence."...

... But not character, which is where the rubber meets the road.

Quite.

quote:

"Can you elaborate (on Biden's forgetfulness)?"...

Sure, he postured as an opponent of war with Iraq, and Afghanistan during the debate, but voted in the Senate to authorize the use of force by Bush II (in contrast to his boss).

When in the debate did he posture as an opponent of war with Iraq and Afghanistan? His posture seemed to be in favor of withdrawing from the theater, not saying we should not have been there in the first place. There is nothing contradictory there.
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
You could be right about the discouragement on the left. I always assume that the faithful core remains intact. If they did break ranks, and if their unity has an effect upon independents, then a Biden draw might have the effect that you suggest.

I do not believe this debate was a draw, but your analysis does not require anything more than a perceived victory among the faithful. If Obama can not make the case to independents for a second term, then I don’t think that a partisan infusion of Geritol will make much difference. Like I mentioned, we will all know soon enough.

This campaign is still the President's to lose. I understand that Gov Romney has made awesome strides in the polls this past week and a half. But before the debate, his campaign was practically DOA.

Even now, after all the gains, the President still leads in the swing states. President Obama was so far ahead in those states that, quite honestly, I think he was phoning it in.

I still don't think that Romney is going to win. I have never thought that Romney was going to win since he started coming out as the winnner of the primaries, and the narrative of "yes, Romney is the least crazy candidate" was switched to "Romney is hitler's clone!".

The only thing I think that all this has done is make the odds better when I place a buttload of money on Obama to win. The real question is wether that day was yesterday and if I missed my chance.

The President has been so far ahead, and has played such awesome political moves, that I got the sense that the President was not even trying, and still beating Romney handily. That's really the sense that I got. That here was a Jedi Master just flinging a droid around with a finger while doing the Grey Hooker's crossword puzzle at the same time.

He really was phoning it in, and still winning, until that debate.

I even got that sense when I saw the video, or saw all the photos of the President during the debate. He was phoning it in. He was embarassed that he even had to waste his time debating this guy who had absolutely no chance in hell of winning. "Why am I here? I could be with my wife and daughters tonight. Or taking care of some real emergency. This is a waste of my time. This fool has no chance in hell of beating me."

And to me, the President was right. Until he actually did that, and his numbers went into free fall. Even then, even with all the damage, he was/is still ahead by a massive amount in the places that matter.

The master has been embarassed, not beaten, not by a long shot. All he has to do is show up to the rest of the debates and bring back some of that old 2008 magic, and he's won.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
Fagh. If the details can stand up to scrutiny, they should be presented for scrutiny. If they cannot, that is telling.

Details are for lesser human beings, not politicans.

I've pointed out before that Governor Romney is not the first Presidential candidate who was vague on plans and promises. Should we start a list here of presidential candidates who had "plans", but did not give "details"?

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
CNN-ORC post-debate poll of Registered Voters: 48% said Ryan won. 44% said Biden won. 70 to 30? really? You don't even remotely question such lopsidedness?
Do I question it? It was a voluntary poll, I am completely convinced it was unscientific.

Yet you attached to your poll a bunch of hyperbolic statements you know perfectly well noone was polled on.

As Mitt Romney said, "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
Fagh. If the details can stand up to scrutiny, they should be presented for scrutiny. If they cannot, that is telling.

Details are for lesser human beings, not politicans.

I've pointed out before that Governor Romney is not the first Presidential candidate who was vague on plans and promises. Should we start a list here of presidential candidates who had "plans", but did not give "details"?

I have also said this. It is not news to me. [Wink]
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
"Then again as VL pointed out they are eager to paint Obama as weak on foreign policy."

That's incredibly foolish of them. Obama was born and raised in that briar patch. There's never been a Republican president as tough on foreign policy as Obama.

They've refused to deal with the real Obama since before he was elected and they aren't going to start now.

Mainstream Republican foriegn policy is written by people who've never been off the short leash of a pundit in foriegn land for people who don't have passports.

I think Romney and Ryan honestly believe that had Republicans been in charge the world of the pst 4 years would be different. They are wrong and that's because they know little of the reality that is Sunni Islam.

The reality of the middle east and north Africa is that the Islamists aren't cave men, but are savy organizers who have had decades of experience in community organizing in both their own countries and in western nations and when the the western oriented revolutionairies opened their societies to democratic elections they were ready and able to sell the people who can't afford Iphones on the idea that all their problems stemmed from their nations abondoning God and the traditional family unit.

I've seen this go down in the most agressively secular nation in the Muslim world, so I find it unsurprising. Most Americans were unhapily surprised by this. Republicans are by and large convinced that had they been in charge it wouldn't have happened, but barring a decades long headstart and tens of billions in foriegn aid (which we don't have), this was inevitable.

Americans are inheritors of a democratic tradition which goes back to England. (Ironically Noel argued this so well that despite my Scottish Anlophobia I concluded I was giving too much credit to France and too little to England) that tradition does not exist in much of the world and the love of liberty which we have (or claim to have) is hardly universal. If anything it's an exceptional aspect of the anglophone world and its close cultural neighbors in western Europe.

[ October 12, 2012, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Chael,

"Have you considered that it is such cynicism... which perpetuates a political system in which these debates are nothing better than political theater?"...

... No, and I am not likely to. We have as clear a choice, in ideological terms, as the country ever has. Still, the election outcome hinges upon the indecision of "independents" looking for policy distinctions at the margins.

This is the source, not the consequence, of the drama.

"... people might actually be more thoughtful than they are given credit for being... they are nonetheless capable of taking in data and reaching conclusions."...

... I agree completely with the second part, and disagree emphatically with the first. Those in the 47% are perfectly capable of reaching big picture conclusions, they simply do not. Some ignorance is elective, and predictable.

"When in the debate did he (Biden) posture as an opponent of the war with Iraq and Afghanistan?"...

... 28 minutes, and 30 seconds into the debate.

Quote:

"They talk about this great recession as though it fell out of the sky, like; 'Oh my goodness, where did it come from?'. It came from this man (Ryan) voting to put two wars on a credit card... I was there. I voted against them. I said; 'No, we can't afford that.' "

[ October 12, 2012, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:

"When in the debate did he (Biden) posture as an opponent of the war with Iraq and Afghanistan?"...

... 28 minutes, and 30 seconds into the debate.

Quote:

"They talk about this great recession as though it fell out of the sky, like; 'Oh my goodness, where did it come from?'. It came from this man (Ryan) voting to put two wars on a credit card... I was there. I voted against them. I said; 'No, we can't afford that.' "

This is a lie; here is the actual quote:

" It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there. I voted against them. I said, no, we can't afford that."

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam,

You might choose your words more carefully.

What are you claiming that I "lied" about?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You, or your source, edited a quote to change its meaning, and then attributed the edited quote to Biden. That's a lie.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is not a "lie," Adam. Every educated person knows that elipses indicate missing words. You're not usually the first to jump to such wrongheaded and hotheaded use of terms. Bad day?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam,

You omitted the entire context, and then complain that I misrepresented what... his vote on the prescription drug entitlement?

You do realize that he voted *for* that also, correct?

I charitably attribute his mis-statements to an over taxed 73 year old brain. He did say that he *meant* his blunders during the debate. If I did not take him at face value, I would have to conclude that he lied twice in the same rant.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
That is not a "lie," Adam. Every educated person knows that elipses indicate missing words. You're not usually the first to jump to such wrongheaded and hotheaded use of terms. Bad day?

No, its been rather pleasant, but thanks for asking. [Smile]

When you make an omission that changes the meaning of the text, thats misleading. Noel was asked to show where Biden claims to have been against the war; so he took a quote where Biden talks about voting against tax cuts, and against deficit funding for the wars and the drug bill, and he omitted a big chunk *in the middle of the sentence* so that it seemed like he was saying "I voted against the wars." How is that not a lie?

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... This is an example of the elective ignorance that I was talking about.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When you make an omission that changes the meaning of the text, thats misleading.
I think we need to ask G3, just to be sure.

----------

For my part, noel, I have always thought that you have done a stellar job of demonstrating elective ignorance, and think you deserve a little break from it.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
When you make an omission that changes the meaning of the text, thats misleading. Noel was asked to show where Biden claims to have been against the war; so he took a quote where Biden talks about voting against tax cuts, and against deficit funding for the wars and the drug bill, and he omitted a big chunk *in the middle of the sentence* so that it seemed like he was saying "I voted against the wars." How is that not a lie?

Noel's cut did not change the meaning of the text--it simply removed cases which were unimportant to his point. If you add them back in, the quote means the same thing.

Now, Noel can still be wrong about the meaning of what Biden said (were there appropriations bills that would involve deficit spending for the wars that Biden voted against, therefore making Biden's claim accurate?), but he was not misleading with his edits to the quote.

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Noel's cut did not change the meaning of the text--it simply removed cases which were unimportant to his point.
Your characterization is generous to a fault - and a pretty large fault at that. Noel's edit absolutely changed the meaning of the quote, and what he removed was not just unimportant to his point, but actually clarified that what Biden was talking about was the irresponsibility of cutting taxes on the wealthy at the same time as implementing unfunded programs - including the two wars, but his words do not suggest opposition to the wars per se, but their unfunded nature.

Whether those policies actually contributed to the recession is debatable, but claiming that that particular statement was evidence of Biden opposing the wars themselves would be incorrect on its face, but the creative editing was absolutely misleading.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Given the way conversational English works, I think it's more charitable to assume that Biden's "them" is a grey area. The "them" in his sentence is, as implied by the rules of grammar, two or more of the following: "putting two wars on a credit card," whatever specific spending bills he might mean by that; Bush's prescription drug benefit; and "a trillion-dollar tax cut on the wealthy." Precision would demand that every single clause be included in his "them," but conversational English is rarely precise.

Broadly, noel's edits change the meaning of Biden's statement from "I opposed various reckless spending measures, such as the following" to "I opposed the wars." That's some valuable context lost, IMO.

[ October 12, 2012, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Noel's edit absolutely changed the meaning of the quote, and what he removed was not just unimportant to his point, but actually clarified that what Biden was talking about was the irresponsibility of cutting taxes on the wealthy at the same time as implementing unfunded programs - including the two wars, but his words do not suggest opposition to the wars per se, but their unfunded nature.

I found the meaning perfectly obvious from the edited quote. Perhaps it would be less obvious to one who had not seen the debate?

I agree that Biden's opposition is clearly framed as being to unfunded wars, not to the wars themselves.

If Noel were truly attempting to be misleading, why would he have included the 'No, we can't afford that' bit? Removing /that/ would have been misleading.

Edited to add: I can see one case in which the edit could have been misleading, that being that Biden's point was that it was the combination of those three factors, not any one of them alone, which was unaffordable. In that case, yes, removing the other cases does change the point. Is that the argument you are making? If not, please elaborate.

[ October 12, 2012, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: Chael ]

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
[QB] Given the way conversational English works, I think it's more charitable to assume that Biden's "them" is a grey area. The "them" in his sentence is, as implied by the rules of grammar, two or more of the following: "putting two wars on a credit card," whatever specific spending bills he might mean by that; Bush's prescription drug benefit; and "a trillion-dollar tax cut on the wealthy." Precision would demand that every single clause be included in his "them," but conversational English is rarely precise.

I don't feel like being that charitable. Unless he followed the 'them' with specific examples ('I voted against them: the X and the Y,') the grammatical construction covers all of them. Conversational English can go jump in a lake. [Smile]
Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I found the meaning perfectly obvious from the edited quote. Perhaps it would be less obvious to one who had not seen the debate?
That kinda goes without saying, doesn't it? If we already knew the complete statement and weren't dependent on Noel's misrepresentation, then yes, nobody would be fooled.
quote:
Conversational English can go jump in a lake. [Smile]
So now, the context of listening to the speech no longer matters to you?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does anyone find it ironic that the same people who claim that showing restraint and respect for the rights of nations we dislike projects unacceptable weakness are the ones that claim that Ryan won the debate, or at least was unfairly treated in the debate, because he was (supposedly) polite and respectful of his opponent.

[ October 13, 2012, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
[QB] Given the way conversational English works, I think it's more charitable to assume that Biden's "them" is a grey area. The "them" in his sentence is, as implied by the rules of grammar, two or more of the following: "putting two wars on a credit card," whatever specific spending bills he might mean by that; Bush's prescription drug benefit; and "a trillion-dollar tax cut on the wealthy." Precision would demand that every single clause be included in his "them," but conversational English is rarely precise.

I don't feel like being that charitable. Unless he followed the 'them' with specific examples ('I voted against them: the X and the Y,') the grammatical construction covers all of them. Conversational English can go jump in a lake. [Smile]
I often tell people that, just as an experiment, they should record five minutes of their own conversation with someone, and then transcribe it. Its actually quite appalling how poor, almost incomprehensible the grammar is. When we speak, we pause, and often restart clauses without finishing the previous one. Tone of voice makes it very clear to people who are listening, which is why we don't find it confusing. But written english has a very limited capacity to notate pauses, and no capacity to notate significant tone. There is a surprising amount lost in translation.

But this is mostly beside the point. Watch the clip (start at 27:30 or so) and tell me if Biden is posturing as an opponent of the war with Iraq and Afghanistan. He's not; its not even close. Noel's claim is absurd; he doctored a quote to try and defend it, and got called on it.

quote:
Does anyone find it ironic that the same people who claim that showing restraint and respect for the rights of nations we dislike projects unacceptable weakness are the ones that claim that Ryan won the debate, or at least was unfairly treated in the debate, because he was (supposedly) polite and respectful of his opponent.
I do. But its such par-for-the-course irony that I barely notice it. If Biden had been the Republican, and Ryan the democrat, there isn't a single conservative commentator who wouldn't have been applauding his bold, confident style and clear dominance in the debate. That's just politics.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't tell me you've ever thought otherwise! Just listening to the rationalizations is to hear an opinion supporting a point of view. But the constant denials in the face of clear proof that they are parroting lies is a sign that they are beyond reach. It's scary to think what things Romney would do to them if elected that they would still continue to cheer for.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You have to stretch to believe that Biden said we can't afford those wars. What he voted for regarding Iraq and Afghanistan was to authorize the President to take appropriate steps, up to and including military action. That is *not* the same thing as saying "go ahead and launch a war regardless of the cost or any budget considerations".
quote:
And, by the way, they talk about this Great Recession if it fell out of the sky, like, "Oh, my goodness, where did it come from?" It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there. I voted against them. I said, no, we can't afford that.
What he objected to was all of the things he mentioned that are tax or spending issues that we could not afford. We've been here before (Jeremiah Wright, for example), and it's clear that people who oppose someone will hear exactly what they want to hear.

[ October 13, 2012, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
We've been here before (Jeremiah Wright, for example), and it's clear that people who oppose someone will hear exactly what they want to hear.

LoL! The Jeremiah Wright test doesn't quite cut the way you said ... what I remember from that is certain folks trying to turn "God Damn America" into something warm and fuzzy. [Big Grin] Arguments that would have worked nearly as well to rehabilitate the Westboros.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, that's the way you remember it [Wink] .
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL. Better stay out of the sietch orgy, Pete.

[ October 13, 2012, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Grant ]

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

quote:
Chael: Conversational English can go jump in a lake. [Smile]
DonaldD: So now, the context of listening to the speech no longer matters to you?
You just did what Noel did, Donald: you cherry-picked a portion of what I said which was relevant to your point, and cut out what you thought was extraneous.

I would argue that what you cut out was important to a full understanding of my meaning, but that the integral data was left--so in considering your point in isolation ('Chael thought the context of the speech might be important, but this quote belies that!'), it was a fair edit for you to make, especially if you truly do not understand where I'm coming from.

I did say that, and so you asserting that I said that is not a lie.

Now: the context in which something is uttered is important. Yes, spoken English is not as precise as written (this is one of the reasons why I love writing so), because people are imperfect. However, the grammatical clause was blatantly obviously covering all of the cases, to the point that were /I/ speaking and I only meant that I had voted against two of the three, I would certainly say something to that effect--and /I/ am not a politician in a debate presenting what certainly sounded like a prepared talking point, who knows that everything that comes out of his mouth is going to be parsed carefully for meaning.

Getting back to our original disagreement: if I'm wrong overall about Noel's edit, I'm happy to admit it, but you haven't made that case to my satisfaction. If you wish this to be just another area where you and I agree to disagree, I'm fine with that.

(Edited to fix the quotes bar)

[ October 13, 2012, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Chael ]

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chael
Member
Member # 2436

 - posted      Profile for Chael   Email Chael   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I often tell people that, just as an experiment, they should record five minutes of their own conversation with someone, and then transcribe it. Its actually quite appalling how poor, almost incomprehensible the grammar is.

Not me. /My/ spoken grammar is /perfect/.

[Smile]

quote:

But written english has a very limited capacity to notate pauses, and no capacity to notate significant tone. There is a surprising amount lost in translation.

Quite. There is a reason I watch the debates now; last time I just read the transcripts, and found them rather lacking. But as you say, this is mostly beside the point.

quote:

Watch the clip[/URL] (start at 27:30 or so) and tell me if Biden is posturing as an opponent of the war with Iraq and Afghanistan. He's not; its not even close. Noel's claim is absurd; he doctored a quote to try and defend it, and got called on it.

My argument is that 1) Biden is not posturing as an opponent of the war with Iraq and Afghanistan, 2) Noel's edited quote does not make it appear that Biden is an opponent of the war, but rather of unfunded wars; the important pieces about deficit spending were retained. The unfunded wars were only a piece of Biden's overall argument, but they /were/ a piece of Biden's overall argument, and if Noel wants to focus on them to make his point, I don't see why that is wrong. Out of context? Yes. Do they still exist as part of his argument? Yes.

I am arguing with your premise ('Noel was intentionally misleading,') not with your ultimate conclusion ('Noel is wrong.').

Posts: 872 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chael:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
When you make an omission that changes the meaning of the text, thats misleading. Noel was asked to show where Biden claims to have been against the war; so he took a quote where Biden talks about voting against tax cuts, and against deficit funding for the wars and the drug bill, and he omitted a big chunk *in the middle of the sentence* so that it seemed like he was saying "I voted against the wars." How is that not a lie?

Noel's cut did not change the meaning of the text--it simply removed cases which were unimportant to his point. If you add them back in, the quote means the same thing.

Now, Noel can still be wrong about the meaning of what Biden said (were there appropriations bills that would involve deficit spending for the wars that Biden voted against, therefore making Biden's claim accurate?), but he was not misleading with his edits to the quote.

Furthermore, even if Noel's quotes had been misleading, it doesn't follow that the statement is a "lie" absent intent to deceive.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Yes, that's the way you remember it [Wink] .

The way I remember it, you even bought into Pyr's hillarious misconstruction of G*D*, America! [Crying]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Yes, spoken English is not as precise as written (this is one of the reasons why I love writing so), because people are imperfect."

Which is why spoken English is so much better to gain understanding than written English is. Put differently, the spoken word is more accurate and the written word is more precise. Hear Biden's words again and see if you think precision is more important.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Former vice president Dick Cheney said he found Vice President Joe Biden’s behavior at the debate Thursday night “very disturbing,” adding that it was “the most emotionally unstable debate performance in modern American politics,” reports Mediaite."

Here. Yes, factually precise with no nuance of a biased point of view. From a former VP of the US, no less.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Setting aside the fact that the source is Darth Vader, can you actually disagree with his analysis?:

quote:


The most important trait for a vice president is “the ability to step in a a moment’s notice and take over,” Cheney said. “And you want somebody calm, cool, and collected, who asks questions and seeks good information and makes life-or-death decisions that we pay a president to take for all of us.”

Biden, Cheney added, does not have “the kind of personality I would like to see in the Oval Office.”


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 22 pages: 1  2  3  ...  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  ...  20  21  22   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1