<p>The "heaven" reference was about teachers not enjoying monetary rewards here on earth, but get their due in heaven. It wasn't an insult but empathy toward teachers.</p>
<p>At the risk of appearing condescending, it appears mrego is not familiar with basic rhetorical tactics.</p>
<p>EDIT: Hard knocks explained what I was about to.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Biden was super condescending to the audience and all of America. Does he really have to repeat the sentence he just spoke over again as he did several times? He must think people are idiots who can't understand his brilliant thoughts. What a jerk. What a jerk. (Oh no, now he's got me doing it. On no, now he's got me doing it.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you're looking for something to find wrong, you're bound to find it. I don't think anyone else even noticed that, or if they did it certainly did not come across as condescending. If that's the worst he did, then he knocked it out of the park.</p>
<p>The only time I noticed a repeat was after he choked up talking about his family and repeated "I understand" a couple times while gaining his composure.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Biden was super condescending to the audience and all of America.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is only a reflection of your own insecurities. Nobody thought that Biden was condescending to anybody. You seem to have some kind of Napoleonic Complex.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He said the opposite. Try thinking critically for once.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a dude who's 6'6 going on 6'7, I know all about that stupid complex. Under 6'=GTFO imo.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He said the opposite. Try thinking critically for once.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Biden's got facts, but he's on the wrong side of the issues.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmmmm.</p>
<p>The polls say it all. Obama/Biden are widening their lead over McCain/Palin and are ahead in most battleground states. McCain's campaign has been largely reduced to a series of gambles that haven't worked. Expect his campaign to get very nasty in the next month -- because he's desperate. The VP debate was no contest. Palin's "answers" were memorized sound bytes and she repeated them like a parrot -- and often her responses didn't even address the questions being asked. I'm amazed that anyone could watch the VP debate and think that she won -- she is truly not qualified to be vice president, and much less president. Given McCain's age and history of malignant melanoma, one really ought to pause and think hard before voting for the Republican ticket given that the result may well be President Palin.</p>
<p>Biden pwned her at the beginning but then he started failing about halfway through.^^</p>
<p>Yeah, hmmm indeed. Just because you have a laundry list of knowledge like a wonky genius doesn't make you right indeed. </p>
<p>McCain and Palin have the right vision for this country. Obama and Biden like to show their wonk about Afghanistan and how that's the "right" war with all these facts, but they're wrong.</p>
<p>Analysis:</a> Palin's words carry racial tinge - Yahoo! News
The ass socialist press, which is willing to call the McCain racist if it has white women in its ads, black men in its ads, and criticism of a radical, at least recognizes the implications of a successful Iraq.
The</a> Associated Press: Analysis: Stable Iraq could influence Mideast</p>
<p>No, we probably weren't right to go in in the first place, but that's not what this discussion should be about going forwards.</p>
<p>Obama</a> did hedge his Iraq war opposition at times | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times</p>
<p>And speaking of which, Obama was against it, after which he might've been for it, except he admitted he was lying to save Kerry and Edwards's ass, after which he was definitely against it and always for withdrawal, until he was for "refining" his withdrawal plan.</p>
<p>What was the situation? We didn't want another 9.11. Saddam was a bad man, we wanted to look at his weapons, he was being stubborn, so boo to him that we invaded.</p>
<p>Let's look at another aspect of Palin's vision of America... or perhaps, Obama's distorted vision of it.</p>
<p>Barack Obama Said American Troops Were "Just Air-Raiding Villages And Killing Civilians" In Afghanistan. </p>
<p>"America is the greatest country on the face of the Planet. Now help me change it"</p>
<p>On Ayers: Oh, he did some bad stuff when I was young.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm crazy, but if I ever found anyone to be a lyncher, a serial crook, a child molester, an unAmerican terrorist, I would seek to destroy all ties with that person, and Obama just pettily dismisses his actions of the past. For the decades that Obama knew him, of course he knew about Ayers's past, yet he is reported to have been in contact with him at the latest, at 2005! Similarly, Obama claims to have never have heard of Wright's rage, but I think not.</p>
<p>So yes, Obama and Biden, lobbyist and lawyers that they are, have developed themselves to pull a lot of facts and sound impressive. But their records and views are anything but.</p>
<p>OK Timeout. </p>
<p>Before we prove with absolute certainty that we are children, let's come up for air long enough to acknowledge a few things. Sarah Palin is not a brainless twit. She has reached a level of success that most of us would consider significant. That does not automatically qualify or preclude her from being a viable VP candidate. Barack Obama does not sympathize with terrorists. He has proven to care deeply about this country by the choices he has made. That does not automatically qualify or preclude him from being a viable presidential candidate. John McCain is not incapable of implementing needed changes to our government, whatever his past affiliations with G B have been. Joe Biden is not incapable of implementing needed changes to our government, whatever his past affiliations with the Senate have been. Joe Biden did not "win" the VP debate. He made some points and faltered on some. Sarah Palin did not "win" the VP debate. She made some points and ducked the issue on some. Some people would defend Joe Biden's performance even if it had been horrible. Some people would defend SP's performance however badly it had gone for her. </p>
<p>Acting like drooling middle school morons by insisting that our candidate can do no wrong while the other candidate can do no right only makes us all look like just that--drooling morons. The marketing department of (take your choice of candidate or company) rubs its hands in absolute glee at the simple-mindedness and gullibility so many of us insist on showing. We are easier to fool and easier to control if we do not continually question not only the positions of both candidates, but our own conclusions as well. Why do you think these campaigns turn into such painfully immature finger-pointing, fear-mongering contests? Because we allow them to. </p>
<p>Let's depart for just a little while from "My dad's bigger than your dad" and do the job we are charged with doing. Question yourself just a little. Open your eyes just a little. Do not accept slogans and identity politics. Have a good debate, but do not descend into a meaningless exchange of insults. Both sides will surely let us keep on as we are because we are easier to control that way. But we can insist otherwise. </p>
<p>Sorry for that. This is an interesting election, for many reasons, and I think we are lucky to have two good people running for pres. But the stupidity that is starting to dominate the discussion (not just here but in most news outlets and forums) is just plain insulting. </p>
<p>OK. Back to the fun. Have at it.</p>
<p>^ to Bennie.</p>
<p>I couldn't agree more. Thank you. Although I am a Republican and therefore biased, I do try to maintain a certain level of objectivity. It's just plain ridiculous though to see so many "supporters" aka fanatics on either side screaming out "Obama is a terrorist!" or "Palin is a blonde!"</p>
<p>Be real. All four candidates didn't get to where they are at for been stupid.</p>
<p>For Bennie:</p>
<p>Argument</a> to moderation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>If you think I was advocating compromise, you completely missed the point. Vigorous advocacy and mindless repetition of slogans and simplified exaggeration are two different things. I guess it is just a matter of maturity.</p>
<p>MelancholyDane,</p>
<p>You raise an excellent point. The "Argument to Moderation" always favours the dumber and more extremist side, which in modern times tend to be Republican. For example, there should absolutely be no middle ground between evolution and creationism because creationism is a crock of crap. It's like peddling to the lowest common denominator, and the collective intellect of a people suffers as a result.</p>
<p>It's like in negotiations, and when the other side tries to lowball you. The Republicans constantly lowball the Democrats so that the "moderate" middle is actually damn conservative.</p>
<p>Did anyone else not notice the L in "clock" when they first read the title of this thread?</p>
<p>Bennie,</p>
<p>I calmly invite you to point to an example of me mindlessly repeating a slogan or exaggerating simply. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Before we prove with absolute certainty that we are children, let's come up for air long enough to acknowledge a few things. Sarah Palin is not a brainless twit. She has reached a level of success that most of us would consider significant. That does not automatically qualify or preclude her from being a viable VP candidate. Barack Obama does not sympathize with terrorists. He has proven to care deeply about this country by the choices he has made. That does not automatically qualify or preclude him from being a viable presidential candidate. John McCain is not incapable of implementing needed changes to our government, whatever his past affiliations with G B have been. Joe Biden is not incapable of implementing needed changes to our government, whatever his past affiliations with the Senate have been.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oversimplification? Did I hear a pot call a kettle black?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Joe Biden did not "win" the VP debate. He made some points and faltered on some. Sarah Palin did not "win" the VP debate. She made some points and ducked the issue on some. Some people would defend Joe Biden's performance even if it had been horrible. Some people would defend SP's performance however badly it had gone for her.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Observation: Claiming that the debate had no victor is an opinion just as much as claiming that the debate had a victor. It isn't automatically correct just because it's in the center of two extremes. You're going to have to support it, just like we have to support our opinions. "Candidate X answered some questions and didn't answer others" is not a strong support. The final two sentences are included because they're wildly non sequitur.</p>
<p>As for the rest of that post, it was mostly just condescending, but its condescension was untempered by insight. If you're insulted by the discourse in this thread, I'm insulted by you lumping every poster with every other poster and making a shallow judgment of our collective intellect.</p>
<p>EDIT: Before you start in on this, bear in mind that I don't even like Barack Obama that much.</p>
<p>nbachris2788,</p>
<p>I wasn't making the point specifically to put down the Republican Party, but you got the gist of it. I object to the entire system of thinking, because it can be just as extreme, irresponsible, or unsubstantiated, and is far more likely to go unchallenged. It's just like the end of every South Park episode: it's easy to reduce two (or more) sides of an issue to the absurd and claim that the answer is "in the middle," but it's a formula that works better in comedy than in actual decision-making.</p>
<p>Now, for all I know, Bennie could have very good reasoning to support what he's saying. However, none of it is laid out in his post(s). It is implicit that, because he's taken a stand in the center, his points are balanced and nuanced. That's what the issue is.</p>
<p>Bennie's heart is in a good place on this, but I'm not sure I agree.</p>
<p>People disagree on substance, but nobody would claim that McCain or Biden could not handle leading this country. Even Obama, who has withstood 3 of the most powerful politcal machines in the country (Chicago, Clinton, Republican) has proven his intellectual grasp and political fortitude in a very hard fought election to earn a seat at the table in most minds.</p>
<p>But there are many people absolutely outraged that social conservatives - even back in 2000 - did not have the foresight to see this disaster coming from Bush. Touted as the guy with whom you could have a beer, it was obvious he was in over his head back then (both intellectually and experientially) and it is proven now. </p>
<p>With an opportunity to learn a lesson and move forward, they fall backwards into another "folk like us" Sarah Palin. Any thinking American should be equally outraged at her nomination. The sense of dread many of us had at the notion of Bush running the supposedly free world (which, I might point out, is not there for McCain so it's not just "conservative bashing") was reignited with Palin. You can call it childish or immature, but this person is woefully unqualified to lead our nation. If she were a liberal, conservatives would have shreaded her by now.</p>
<p>Instead, they have hid her from scrutiny, launched charges of sexism against any who question her validity, and hidden behind this mythological "liberal media" (which was absolutely in love with McCain back in 2000) when she could not answer simple questions. Democrats, so scared of losing the female vote, treat her differently because of this and that is the true sexism.</p>
<p>She may have done well in her 20 months of being governor of a small, isolated state (Bush did well in his first year, too), but we all should be outraged at the political stunt that is her candidacy and appalled at her lack of knowledge. Reading names - and misreading some of them, including our own military leader - does not qualify one.</p>
<p>So, if being childish is what you call that, then so be it. Whatever it takes to avoid experiencing the manifestation of the same sense of dread so many of us had back in 2000 and 2004 when Bush was also applauded for putting together coherent sentences (he did have the help of an earpiece feeding him answers, so maybe Sarah's got that on him).</p>
<p>^^
I didn't even mention the appalling lies that McCain and Palin have traded in ever since her nomination. There's distorting the truth for political gain and then there's absolute, unequivocal lying - from raising taxes 94 times to bridges to nowhere to palling around with terrorists. The lies just keep coming. </p>
<p>If one wishes to be treated with respect and maturity, then one must earn that respect and act maturely. </p>
<p>Americans with any sense of moral fortitude should be outraged... but most are not. Palin doesn't like abortion, so she has a blank check to get away with murder, just like Bush did.</p>