The Great Presidential Debate

[Woodruff]

Oh yeah, and this is all with the moderator being a firm liberal, Obama even attended her wedding.

Having watched the debate myself, I find this thoroughly irrelevant, and it's frankly disgusting that you keep bringing it up as if it played any role at all in the debate.

[Woodruff]

The only reason true lefties think Biden won the debate was because Biden turned nasty, and they identify with that. It's just like here in the forum. Conservatives win the argument on the substance and ideas and articulation, and Liberals win the argument because they bashed the hardest.

I can't believe I still get surprised by the things you say.

[Woodruff]

I made an inconsequential mistake there, because I was speaking from memory. The actual line, which was everywhere, was 27 lies in 38 minutes. You can google it, it's everywhere.

Some people are being stupidly polite and calling them "myths." But saying something that's not true is not what "Myth" means.

So what statements were lies?

Did you see the links I posted? The first one was titled "Romney Debates With Himself", I believe.

[Woodruff]

Think Progress? hehe

I suppose this is where someone posts a FOX news segment right?

Incredible bias vs incredible bias is what we already have and do not need anymore of

Were you going to dispute the points made, or just make fun of the site? I'm sure Night Strike will be along ANY MOMENT to tell you that you shouldn't do this.

[Woodruff]

Because thinkprogress.org is unbiased?

Why Night Strike, aren't you the one that has stated that someone shouldn't debate the site, but rather the content of the accusations? I guess that only applies when it's a site YOU support, right?

[john9blue]

your relationship arrows grow stronger every day...

[Night Strike]

Because thinkprogress.org is unbiased?

Why Night Strike, aren't you the one that has stated that someone shouldn't debate the site, but rather the content of the accusations? I guess that only applies when it's a site YOU support, right?

Would you learn how to quote what I actually said in that post?

[Woodruff]

Because thinkprogress.org is unbiased?

Why Night Strike, aren't you the one that has stated that someone shouldn't debate the site, but rather the content of the accusations? I guess that only applies when it's a site YOU support, right?

Would you learn how to quote what I actually said in that post?

You didn't say that? I would beg to differ.

[Night Strike]

Because thinkprogress.org is unbiased?

Why Night Strike, aren't you the one that has stated that someone shouldn't debate the site, but rather the content of the accusations? I guess that only applies when it's a site YOU support, right?

Would you learn how to quote what I actually said in that post?

You didn't say that? I would beg to differ.

No, you just completely edited out the portion of my post where I actually explain how the biased site is wrong. Not only did I claim that they are biased, but I also showed how they were wrong within that article. WHICH IS THE EXACT THING I'VE TOLD PEOPLE TO DO!!! But you didn't care about that part of my post.

[Woodruff]

Because thinkprogress.org is unbiased?

Why Night Strike, aren't you the one that has stated that someone shouldn't debate the site, but rather the content of the accusations? I guess that only applies when it's a site YOU support, right?

Would you learn how to quote what I actually said in that post?

You didn't say that? I would beg to differ.

No, you just completely edited out the portion of my post where I actually explain how the biased site is wrong. Not only did I claim that they are biased, but I also showed how they were wrong within that article. WHICH IS THE EXACT THING I'VE TOLD PEOPLE TO DO!!! But you didn't care about that part of my post.

I didn't care for the hypocritical part of your post, which is why I took exception to it. I had no argument with the rest of your post, which is why I left it out. If your demonstration of bias by the author is so accurate and complete, there is no need to even say anything regarding the bias of the site itself.

[Night Strike]

Because thinkprogress.org is unbiased?

Why Night Strike, aren't you the one that has stated that someone shouldn't debate the site, but rather the content of the accusations? I guess that only applies when it's a site YOU support, right?

Would you learn how to quote what I actually said in that post?

You didn't say that? I would beg to differ.

No, you just completely edited out the portion of my post where I actually explain how the biased site is wrong. Not only did I claim that they are biased, but I also showed how they were wrong within that article. WHICH IS THE EXACT THING I'VE TOLD PEOPLE TO DO!!! But you didn't care about that part of my post.

I didn't care for the hypocritical part of your post, which is why I took exception to it. I had no argument with the rest of your post, which is why I left it out. If your demonstration of bias by the author is so accurate and complete, there is no need to even say anything regarding the bias of the site itself.

I stated it was biased and showed how its bias caused it to be wrong, which is the exact thing I've been saying others need to do. I don't care if someone is biased or not: show me why they're wrong. If I want to state someone is biased while also showing why they're wrong, then there is nothing hypocritical.

[bradleybadly]

NS, engaging Woodruff is unproductive, regardless of the political subject. It only feeds the satisfaction he receives from what he perceives as irritating others. It's part of an anti-social personality disorder. I've shown his posts to some other people I know who work in that field, and their assessment is that it's not acute [yet]. He used to obsess over ViperOverlord's posts. When Viper stopped responding, he moved on to others, eventually even obsessing over pimpdave. The disorder feeds off of the need to frustrate others (or perceived success of accomplishing the frustration). I found a pretty good website to debate stuff if you want to check it out.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, that's not partisan politics at all.

Yeah, no; It's a very niche-oriented point of view.

Romney, your guy, interrupted and told 27 lies in 38 minutes. He lied the whole time. Yet you support him.
Biden, my man, interrupted and scoffed at a liar.

When in our history did we decide that as a nation, we need to be respectful to someone who's lying to our face? Because I'll tell you that the politicians who founded this country did indeed scoff, jeer, smirk, hiss, and boo anyone they knew to be lying. You want to talk about class and style, how about having the class to not go on national television to lie to us with the grace of a used-car salesman.

Since you're not being partisan, how many times did Joe Biden lie?

I'll happily go on record as saying that I only counted 1 TIME that Biden did not tell the truth. And when I went back over Fact-Check.org's recap of the debate, I wasn't so sure Biden didn't just misinterpret purposely it to make a point to Ryan. However, Ryan's name is all over that fact-check sheet for lying, or getting his sh*t wrong.
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/veep-debate-violations/

There seem to be multiple lies from both the vice president and Congressman Ryan. If you're still not being partisan, Biden's name is also all over the fact-check sheet for lying or getting shit wrong.

Semi-related - I love factcheck. I go there all the time now.

[Juan_Bottom]

There seem to be multiple lies from both the vice president and Congressman Ryan. If you're still not being partisan, Biden's name is also all over the fact-check sheet for lying or getting shit wrong.

Semi-related - I love factcheck. I go there all the time now.

Naw dude, everything that he's on there for is stuff that he got befuddled, not stuff that he was openly lying about. He's not listed there anywhere for directly lying. I did the same thing a page ago, and that's just something that's always going to happen when you're speaking from memory. It doesn't mean that your message is off.

I also have to take an exception to their 'fact-checking' of Biden's repeating Romney's statement that he wouldn't move heaven and earth to get bin laden. Biden was making the point that he would do anything it took to get Osama, while Romney wouldn't. I don't think fact-check is being fair to him because that's what he meant.

[thegreekdog]

There seem to be multiple lies from both the vice president and Congressman Ryan. If you're still not being partisan, Biden's name is also all over the fact-check sheet for lying or getting shit wrong.

Semi-related - I love factcheck. I go there all the time now.

Naw dude, everything that he's on there for is stuff that he got befuddled, not stuff that he was openly lying about. He's not listed there anywhere for directly lying. I did the same thing a page ago, and that's just something that's always going to happen when you're speaking from memory. It doesn't mean that your message is off.

I also have to take an exception to their 'fact-checking' of Biden's repeating Romney's statement that he wouldn't move heaven and earth to get bin laden. Biden was making the point that he would do anything it took to get Osama, while Romney wouldn't. I don't think fact-check is being fair to him because that's what he meant.

It didn't appear to me that the vice president was befuddled at all (to his credit). If you can't trust factcheck, who can you trust?

[Juan_Bottom]

Look at this example:

Biden seemed to question Ryan’s assertion that administration officials called Syrian President Bashar Assad “a reformer” even when he was killing his own civilian countrymen. Ryan was right. Early in the bloody Syrian uprising Hillary Clinton called Assad a “different leader” who many in Congress believe is “a reformer.”

That's not a lie.

Biden exaggerated when he said House Republicans cut funding for embassy security by $300 million. The amount approved for fiscal year 2012 was $264 million less than requested, and covers construction and maintenance, not just security.

Not a lie either, he just rounded the number and made a slight exaggeration to make his point. I don't expect him to remember absolutely everything. Like where all the money in the world goes. I assume that Ryan didn't call him on this because he didn't know it either. And I don't expect him to.
These two comments and the Romney thing seem to be factcheck's biggest issue's with Biden at the debate. This is hardly the behavior of a liar.

The one lie that I thought that I caught Biden in was when he said that he wasn't told that the Benghazi consulate requested more security. I thought it was a brazen lie, but factcheck reports that there is no evidence that the requests ever reached the the top echelons of the Executive Branch.

[Night Strike]

The one lie that I thought that I caught Biden in was when he said that he wasn't told that the Benghazi consulate requested more security. I thought it was a brazen lie, but factcheck reports that there is no evidence that the requests ever reached the the top echelons of the Executive Branch.

Parsing words.

[Juan_Bottom]

The one lie that I thought that I caught Biden in was when he said that he wasn't told that the Benghazi consulate requested more security. I thought it was a brazen lie, but factcheck reports that there is no evidence that the requests ever reached the the top echelons of the Executive Branch.

Parsing words.

Really?
The president has a big f*cking empire to run, so of course he's going to parse out responsibilities to people who work under him. Responsible leaders don't try to micromanage everything.

[thegreekdog]

Look at this example:

Biden seemed to question Ryan’s assertion that administration officials called Syrian President Bashar Assad “a reformer” even when he was killing his own civilian countrymen. Ryan was right. Early in the bloody Syrian uprising Hillary Clinton called Assad a “different leader” who many in Congress believe is “a reformer.”

That's not a lie.

Biden exaggerated when he said House Republicans cut funding for embassy security by $300 million. The amount approved for fiscal year 2012 was $264 million less than requested, and covers construction and maintenance, not just security.

Not a lie either, he just rounded the number and made a slight exaggeration to make his point. I don't expect him to remember absolutely everything. Like where all the money in the world goes. I assume that Ryan didn't call him on this because he didn't know it either. And I don't expect him to.
These two comments and the Romney thing seem to be factcheck's biggest issue's with Biden at the debate. This is hardly the behavior of a liar.

The one lie that I thought that I caught Biden in was when he said that he wasn't told that the Benghazi consulate requested more security. I thought it was a brazen lie, but factcheck reports that there is no evidence that the requests ever reached the the top echelons of the Executive Branch.

Your splitting hairs. I could also split hairs on all the Ryan lies, but I have no interest in defending lying or exagerration for the sake of rhetoric.

There were a few instances where I yelled at the TV.

(1) The $5 trillion thing - It's that much over a long period of time, not in one year.
(2) The Medicare thing - All the Democrats did was move the money from one program to another, they didn't cut anything.
(3) The Libya thing - Just admit you're wrong and move on.
(4) The abortion thing - Awesome question. Great response by Representative Ryan (i.e. the Democrats are no longer just pro-choice, they are actively promoting abortion). Ridiculous response by the vice president. I suspect priests everywhere yelled at the television. So did I.

[Juan_Bottom]

(4) The abortion thing - Awesome question. Great response by Representative Ryan (i.e. the Democrats are no longer just pro-choice, they are actively promoting abortion). Ridiculous response by the vice president. I suspect priests everywhere yelled at the television. So did I.

You're craze.
His response was honest and sensible. Ryan didn't defend his position that "life begins at conception" except from a theological pov. That's useless. That means he's using government to enforce his religious views on abortion.

[Woodruff]

NS, engaging Woodruff is unproductive, regardless of the political subject. It only feeds the satisfaction he receives from what he perceives as irritating others. It's part of an anti-social personality disorder. I've shown his posts to some other people I know who work in that field, and their assessment is that it's not acute [yet]. He used to obsess over ViperOverlord's posts. When Viper stopped responding, he moved on to others, eventually even obsessing over pimpdave. The disorder feeds off of the need to frustrate others (or perceived success of accomplishing the frustration). I found a pretty good website to debate stuff if you want to check it out.

For someone who wants to lash at others for not contributing to a subject, your posts are fine examples of that which you are complaining about.

Well done!

[Woodruff]

Semi-related - I love factcheck. I go there all the time now.

You haven't heard yet? Factcheck is apparently just another liberal rag.

[tzor]

Having watched the debate myself, I find this thoroughly irrelevant, and it's frankly disgusting that you keep bringing it up as if it played any role at all in the debate.

I'm sure that had the moderator been Sean Hannity you would have been up in arms.

And yes, it played a significant role in the debate. The number of times she interrupted Ryan mid sentence was far greater than the number of times she interrupted Biden mid sentence (she actually did that once or twice to Biden on the subject of his denial over the 9/11/12 attacks). Likewise the number of times when she changed the subject after Ryan would make the knockout blow (remember when Obama was practically begging the moderator to change the subject) was countable.

[Woodruff]

Having watched the debate myself, I find this thoroughly irrelevant, and it's frankly disgusting that you keep bringing it up as if it played any role at all in the debate.

I'm sure that had the moderator been Sean Hannity you would have been up in arms.

Not if I felt he held them to the same standard, no.

And yes, it played a significant role in the debate. The number of times she interrupted Ryan mid sentence was far greater than the number of times she interrupted Biden mid sentence (she actually did that once or twice to Biden on the subject of his denial over the 9/11/12 attacks). Likewise the number of times when she changed the subject after Ryan would make the knockout blow (remember when Obama was practically begging the moderator to change the subject) was countable.

Wow. I am saddened that I was so misled by what I believed to be your rationality.

[thegreekdog]

(4) The abortion thing - Awesome question. Great response by Representative Ryan (i.e. the Democrats are no longer just pro-choice, they are actively promoting abortion). Ridiculous response by the vice president. I suspect priests everywhere yelled at the television. So did I.

You're craze.
His response was honest and sensible. Ryan didn't defend his position that "life begins at conception" except from a theological pov. That's useless. That means he's using government to enforce his religious views on abortion.

Which is what his religion tells him to do, no matter how wrong it is. If we come from the premise that Biden and Ryan are Catholics, then they must therefore believe in the tenets of the Catholic Church, which includes speaking out against abortion in both public and private. It's not so much that I think Biden is doing the wrong thing from a policy and government perspective (because I don't). I think Biden's explanation defines him as someone who is not Catholic and caused me to yell at the screen. I literally yelled "Then you're not Catholic."