JillUser JillUser

Why I Think the Debate was a Draw

▼

Why I Think the Debate was a Draw

from JoeUser Forums

I know it's hard to do since most people tuned into the VP debate hoping either one or the other would do well or fall on their face.  Most tuned in having plenty of preconceived notions about the nominees.  But if you can put the partisanship and expectations aside, I think you would see the outcome as more of a draw.

Neither looked like a fool.  Both misspoke at times but there were no huge gaffes that I have heard of.  But people have plenty of influences in their opinions of the outcome.  I still think if you put aside not liking Palin's accent or cute winks and grins or not liking Biden's tightly pursed lips, severe looks and in-your-face hand gestures, you can see that they both stood their ground very well.

They were both very professional.  They were a lot more warm to each other than the presidential nominees for sure.  They both appealed to their bases.

There are so many conditions put on their performances.  All I here is "considering Biden has been in Washington for decades" or "considering this is Palin's first big debate of this nature".  Those things should be irrelevant.  They should be judged on their performance during that 90mins and nothing else.

Biden didn't foam at the mouth and Palin didn't come off as a ditsy beauty queen.  The left saw what they were hoping to see and the same can be said for the right.  You can watch FOX and see that Palin won by 86% or watch CNN and see that Biden won by 57%.

I think Biden did a good job in the debate despite the fact that I have serious disagreements with him.  He was very straight about things I differ from his party on.  He claims it is "clear" that global warming is man made.  He refers to wealth redistribution as "fair" (I call it socialism).  He claims that small businesses won't be affected by their tax plan...80% of small businesses make less than $250k?!  What is he smoking?  But just because I disagree with his stance doesn't mean I think he did badly in the debate.

I like Palin and tend to agree more with their ticket on taxes, bipartisanship and strategy abroad.  My agreement with her stance or the fact that she is very likeable didn't lead me to proclaim she "knocked it out of the park".  I think people who are proclaiming obvious butt kicking from either side are showing their lack of unbiased analysis.

politics
26,905 views 44 replies
Reply #26 from Stardock Forums Top

I know damn well what she meant.  What I mean is: How can you mitigate an effect when you don't know the cause?
End of quote

Well, then why are you and other Democrats in favor of the Kyoto treaty when we don't know the cause of global warming?

Reply #27 from Stardock Forums Top

Let's have doctors try that and see what happens. "Hey, buddy looks like you're crying blood. Not sure what's causing that, but let's just try stuff and see what happens."
End of quote
That's pretty much what doctors do a good deal of the time.  Do you really think doctors know exactly what is happening to their patients all the time? 

How do you know that "Man did it" isn't a misdiagnosis (to go along with your analogy) and that our subsequent "cure" isn't going to kill us all?  What if all of the measures that we take on the premise of man's CO2 emmisions actually throw the natural balance of things off and make things even worse?  Answer: you don't.

It isn't "clear" that man has caused the warming trends.  Doctors thought it was clear that my sister had RA when she was a kid and would shortly be wheel chair ridden.  She's in her late 30s now and has never been in a wheel chair. 

Palin was saying that we need to do what we can to minimize our impact on the planet but stating that it is proven that man is the cause of global warming is simply wrong.  Noone has proven anything except that there is a global warming trend.

Siege of Centauri
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

I know damn well what she meant.  What I mean is: How can you mitigate an effect when you don't know the cause?
End of quote

For that matter, why pass a bailout bill if no one can agree on the cause of the current 'financial crisis'?

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

What I mean is: How can you mitigate an effect when you don't know the cause?
End of quote

We have no clue what causes high blood pressure but we have very effective treatment for it.  You believe we should just let folks with hypertension die of strokes because we 'don't know the cause?'

Get a grip, Zoo.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

Well, then why are you and other Democrats in favor of the Kyoto treaty when we don't know the cause of global warming?
End of quote

The Kyoto Treaty reduces our impact on the environment...it's a good thing regardless if what we do causes global warming or not.

How do you know that "Man did it" isn't a misdiagnosis (to go along with your analogy) and that our subsequent "cure" isn't going to kill us all? What if all of the measures that we take on the premise of man's CO2 emmisions actually throw the natural balance of things off and make things even worse?
End of quote

She downplayed the importance of finding the exact cause...when I think that's a pretty important thing to figure out.  I'm leaning towards man made, but I won't declare it is fact because I don't have concrete evidence...just things that seem to lean toward it.  Biden shouldn't have said that with such certainty and he was a fool for being so vehement about it.

For that matter, why pass a bailout bill if no one can agree on the cause of the current 'financial crisis'?
End of quote

Duh, because money fixes everything! :dur:   

I don't think it should've been passed, but that's another matter altogether.

We have no clue what causes high blood pressure but we have very effective treatment for it. You believe we should just let folks with hypertension die of strokes because we 'don't know the cause?'
End of quote

They can treat it, but never cure it.  You can't solve a problem unless you know the source...sure, you can treat the effects but there's no cure and there's no way to work towards a cure until you find the problem.  That's why we don't have polio or smallpox anymore.

Maybe physiology was the wrong analogy to use...too many exceptions to rules and too many variables.

 

Then again, maybe it just chaps my hide that people can be satisfied with trying to 'fix' something without ever knowing why it began in the first place...I mean, aren't they even curious and want to explore the reasons why?  I just can't be comfortable with not knowing.

~Zoo

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Now, we must 'cure' global warming?  Rotsa ruck on that one.  You savage Palin for stating the commonsense obvious and then make some very specious arguments defending that savaging.

I appreciate the hug :* but you're not gaining ground here.

it just chaps my hide that people can be satisfied with trying to 'fix' something without ever knowing why it began in the first place
End of quote

So you agree that the bailout chaps your hide.  Now you are gaining ground.  Just a slight change and your statement would perfectly apply to the Democrats approach to our financial crisis:

"It just chaps my hide that people can be satisfied with trying to 'fix' something without ever wanting to know why it began in the first place."

All our hides should be so chapped. ;)

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

 

Now, we must 'cure' global warming?
End of quote

I was still in the medical analogy. :P

"It just chaps my hide that people can be satisfied with trying to 'fix' something without ever wanting to know why it began in the first place."
End of quote

That statement works for me.

All our hides should be so chapped.
End of quote

So they should. ;)

~Zoo

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Kyoto Treaty reduces our impact on the environment...it's a good thing regardless if what we do causes global warming or not.
End of quote

It's a good thing even if it causes massive increases in poverty and wrecks economies?

CO2 isn't a pollutant. There's a lot of other things that have a more negative impact on our environment than CO2 (trees are quite fond of CO2 btw).

 

Reply #34 from Stardock Forums Top

 

It's a good thing even if it causes massive increases in poverty and wrecks economies?
End of quote

Has it done this?  If so, please link me to something.  I'd be very interested in hearing it.

CO2 isn't a pollutant. There's a lot of other things that have a more negative impact on our environment than CO2 (trees are quite fond of CO2 btw).
End of quote

ALL plants, several bacteria, and several protista are fond of it as well.  However, too much of something isn't necessarily good.  We're quite fond of O2 if I recall...too much will kill us- hyperoxia. ;)

~Zoo

Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

"I don't know what caused it, we should just fix it." Puh-leeze...you have to know the cause before you can solve anything.
End of quote

So if someone shoots you and your lying in the street bleeding, it's obviously a gunshot wound, the medic's should wait to find out who did it and why did they do it before they start treat you? Seems to me Palin has come to the conclusion (reduce greenhouse gas emissions) without second guessing groups of scientists. If you like your judge, jury, and executioner rolled into one then I'm sure you'll like Biden's response better. So what is the Democrats solution to climate change (i.e. formerly known as global warming, until the weather turned cooler), reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  I guess there should be no fried chicken or omelets until we figure out which came first, the chicken or the egg, maybe we should put Biden on case.

Reply #36 from Stardock Forums Top

So if someone shoots you and your lying in the street bleeding, it's obviously a gunshot wound, the medic's should wait to find out who did it and why did they do it before they start treat you?
End of quote

I guess there should be no fried chicken or omelets until we figure out which came first, the chicken or the egg, maybe we should put Biden on case.
End of quote

You're really trying to stretch this aren't you?  I don't really think climate change relates to getting shot or a philosophical question. :P  The cause in the medic example is a gunshot, the solution is to patch it up...but it's a single, solitary incident.

This is about solving an ongoing issue.  Using your medic example:  If you keep getting shot every weekend and have to go to the hospital, you might want to figure out why people keep shooting you instead of just having your wounds treated. 

The chicken or the egg thing doesn't really fit in here...that's not a problem that needs solving...just some thinking question. 

~Zoo

 

Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Zoologist03, reply 11

your medic example:  If you keep getting shot every weekend and have to go to the hospital, you might want to figure out why people keep shooting you instead of just having your wounds treated. 
End of Zoologist03's quote

I laughed my ass off when I read that.  Nicely done!

:rofl:  

Reply #38 from PolMach Forums Top

Actually, our actions globally, industrially, are very much connected to global warming, and scientists worldwide are in agreement about that. There isn't a single peer reviewed scientific article that would contradict that position. It is a very well funded misinformation campaign by industries that stand to lose money that have given the public this bizarre idea that global warming is like a religion you can believe in or not. It's empirically tested science, plain and simple. If you don't agree with me, you can write and tell the nice people at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change how wrong they are:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

Here we go again -

Nabble, I don't get a dime from any industry to conduct a disinformation campaign.  This 'don't believe the nay-sayers 'cause they're in the tank for Exxon-Mobile' shit is really old.  'Scientists worldwide' are not in agreement that anthropogenic global warming is the problem, as opposed to global warming in general.  Never mind that we're actually in the midst of a period of global cooling.  There are so many threads on this topic, most of them very good (if spirited), I'd strongly suggest you do a simple search for them & study up.  There is lots of information with lots of links to good information which contradict the IPCC's take on things.

Happy reading.

Reply #40 from PolMach Forums Top

I didn't say anything about anyone getting paid, nor did I say anything about anyone being "in the tank with Exxon-Mobile." I do apologize for putting my point in a disrespectful tone though. It is an emotional topic for me and I wrote from a less rational and more emotional standpoint.

I was incorrect however, and I take your point. While the IPCC does state that the evidence of global warming is unequivocal*, human contribution is listed as 'very likely' and not definite.

*Quoting the IPCC Climate Change Synthesis Report 2007

Reply #41 from PolMach Forums Top

Daiwa,

I read your debate on the 'Environment' section. It is a very lively debate indeed!

I will simply say this: it is my opinion that human beings should be responsible with what we put back into the environment by our methods of transportation and manufacture. If there is even a remote chance that our actions could harm ourselves in the future we should consider what we do now carefully.

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's a good thing even if it causes massive increases in poverty and wrecks economies?
End of quote

Actually, it hasn't wreaked any economy or caused massive increase in poverty. On the opposite, it creates a new industry, and makes some project economically viable because of their increase rentability due to carbon credit creation.

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

"I don't know what caused it, we should just fix it." Puh-leeze...you have to know the cause before you can solve anything.
End of quote

Actually, in that, she sounds like a bunch of the GW zealots.  And if she was serious, that would scare me. 

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

Nabble -

Thanks for your clarifications and welcome to the war zone. XD

And I agree with you that reasonable measures to minimize our impact on the environment are desirable.  We just shouldn't bet the farm on anything right now, especially if it has the potential to transfer wealth to countries which don't share our goals (Kyoto) for highly dubious benefit.