It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Who won tonights debate?

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 09:43 PM
reply to post by undo

I "know this how" by listening to her speak. I do not care if the VP is a folksy purple hermaphrodite with a permanent twitch that looks like a wink. He/she has to be knowledgeable about the world. Sarah isn't.

Your turn.

posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 09:47 PM
reply to post by pteridine

examples, please?
i've studied extensively on topics and been told i was an idiot simply because my interpretation of the data differed from someone else's. so is it an interpretive problem or where is it she is falling short? and if interpretive, who's misinterpreting, her or you? these are questions i have to ask myself when i read your statements. in the absence of any further information than, "she's dumb about things," this seems the only logical position to take.

posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 10:08 PM
reply to post by undo

Examples? Read the transcripts of her interviews. Consider how she addressed or didn't address questions in the debate. When she couldn't cope, she provided an answer to a question that wasn't asked. Two examples:

She thinks that Putin would invade Alaska first because it is closer to Russia.

She said that the US should support and defend Georgia if the Russians decided to invade it. She has no idea of how we would do that or even if we could do that. She is dangerously ignorant.

She gets an award for effort in memorizing her lines but she was clearly the wrong choice for McCain.

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 12:02 AM
Yes on foreign policy she's made some huge mistakes. She's basically saying let's go Russia, you're move s)$*H$d Putin. Those comments about Russia have serious implications. I'm sure the back door diplomatic channels are working non-stop trying to smooth things over with Russia.

"She's new at this, c'mon give us a break Vlad. She doesn't mean what she's saying"

I have no doubt in my mind that she is a very bright person and I understand that she's under tremendous pressure being thrust into the world media like this. Every word she says is being scrutinized by 20 different world news agencies who are picking everything she says apart. Some inconsistencies have cropped up. Right now her and her husband are thumbing their noses at the judicial process of The State of Alaska by refusing to adhere to a subpoena being issued for their appearance to testify in the whole "Trooper Gate" thing. Her maybe I could see giving her a brake since she has enough on her plate. However Todd Palin has no excuse. It shows contempt for the laws of the state. I believe the power has gone to their heads.


Guardian UK

She is a very smart lady, there is no question about that. A smart politician uses the gifts they have. She knows how to connect with the average American, got her start in the small time and worked her way up to Governor of Alaska. And know VP Candidate. That is a huge accomplishment. You have to give her that.

Now as cruel as the microscope is on her and the ever mounting pressure to deliver the vote must be, you must see how this is the perfect test of how she is going to handle a major crisis. And with all the tough talk about Russia and Putin coming out of her mouth. You don't want her managing a war front stretching from Afghanistan to Israel and possibly a war in South America. Can you imagine what kind of pressure that would put on her.

Look at that war front and in Russia's backyard.

Look at the Big Picture, the Economy included.

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 12:15 AM

Originally posted by The Axeman
Both "take it easy on her, she's a lady," and "she's not qualified -- she has a vagina and this is a man's world," are BOTH incredibly discriminatory comments.

Most women tend toward female chauvinism, probably because of a sense of insecurity and the traditional feeling of being the 'under dogs'. Ariel Levy used the term, 'Female Chauvinist Pigs' in her book by the same name, in which she claims that many young women in the United States are "replicating male chauvinism and sexist stereotypes".

Levy argues in her book that-

American mass culture has framed the game so perversely that young women now strive to be the "hottest" and "sexiest" girl they know rather than the most accomplished.

Why is that? If women in general give priority to 'hottest' and 'sexiest' instead of 'accomplished', who's to blame?

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 02:50 AM

Originally posted by undo
there you go, ladies and gentleman. "IF we wanted" but we don't, do we? we don't want estrogen anywhere near the "hot seat." what in the sam hill do they teach you guys growing up?]

Calm down there Undo.

I was making a funny.

You know, one of those Tina Fey jokes.

I was making fun of the absurdity that people seem to be valuing superficial traits over actual political substance. Thus, I said, hey why not Tina Fey then.

I was not saying a female being charismatic, and well-spoken, was a negative. I am in no way prejudice against women, or a womanizer. For crying out loud I am half women myself.

You have been here just as long as me, and have read many of my posts I am sure, I am surprised you interpreted this post that way. It was meant as humor, but I was merely trying to address my observation that there was a focus on trivial crap like her use of cool hip language instead of her intellectual merit.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 03:55 AM
reply to post by mikesingh

female chauvinism? can you name even one female Vice President or President in US History? No? I didn't think so

[edit on 4-10-2008 by undo]

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 04:40 AM

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by mikesingh

female chauvinism?

Yep! Take a peek in your mirror, Beth!!
Ok, just jokin'!
Yikes! Is this a one line post?

Line two: Let's stick to the topic of who won the debate!


[edit on 4-10-2008 by mikesingh]

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 12:52 PM
reply to post by undo

Now that you have listened, do you think that she answered the questions? Do you see where she reverted to repeating what she memorized when she was asked a question whose answer she hadn't prepared? She was lost too many times. The public saw it. They sympathize with her but only those in complete denial would say that she "won."
John McCain is responsible for her premature entry into national politics and will sacrifice her for his long-shot chance of winninng.

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 01:50 PM

Originally posted by undolet's face it ladies, they hate us so bad, they can't even let us have spot #2.

Let's face it, even IF this WERE true, which I don't know what you are talking about because I don't see this being true at all, but even if it were, there, IMO, would be GOOD reason why, in this case, "they" would NOT be in the wrong.

1. She is clueless about even the most basic things... the Bush doctrine; she couldn't even name a major newspaper yet claimed that she does in fact read them; how being able to see Russia does not count as experience in foreign relations; she not only thinks that we won the Vietnam War, she credits that "win" to John McCain haha; in fact, the only REASON she could stu...stu..stutter out when asked about why she would support decisions made by Israel is "they are the obviously 'good guys.'"
Oh, and let's not forget that she even blatantly said she didn't know what the duties of Vice President were.

*hopefully.. HOPEFULLY, this has something to do with her love for hockey moms (meaning she was doing what she SHOULD BE doing... being a supportive mom and not so much a governor).

2. Women tend to base decisions on emotion REGARDLESS of if they are aware of this or not; not to mention she JUST had a baby. It takes AT LEAST a year for a womans hormones to calm back down, so we are not even sure that this "passion" she speaks with isn't just due to those hormones. Yes, this is a MAJOR concern of mine considering the way she seems quite eager to go to war w/ not only Iran, but Russia as well.

3. She has two children of school age and a newborn who need their mother, not a nanny. We need a Vice President (because despite those who are ill informed, the Vice President's duties does not JUST consist of sitting around waiting for a phone call to fill in for the President should he not be able to perform his duties). The role of a mother (particularly considering the ages (and corresponding sex w/ age) of her youngest children) and the role of VP are both demanding full time jobs, so it leaves me wondering who gets the shaft.. the children or the country? My guess (which I will keep to myself) is one of the top reasons I have NO respect for the woman.

**Having said all of this, let's remember that one of the important duties of President is to serve as Commander In Chief of the ENTIRE military of the US of A. Seriously?? Her?? Read all the above and if you have a lick of sense, surely you will feel some nervous knots in the pit of your stomach considering there IS a possibility that she could become President.

And one more point, I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton... not AT all. But I can say that despite the issues she stands for that I disagree with, I can understand her being considered more so than Palin. Her child is an adult, she clearly understands policies and the issues facing our country, and she has shown that she can make choices that are not based on emotions.. even when the circumstances are EXTREMELY personal and cut deep. She stayed by her man's side did she not? AND EVEN IF it was because she was being strategic in doing so in hopes of getting to the white house (which is hardly unlikely hehe), this is actually a chalk up in her favor and is a rare thing for a woman to be able to do... putting emotions in check for a "greater" cause.
(This is NOT a vote of support for Sen Clinton being made by me... I could rip her apart issue wise).

Anyway, undo... while I HIGHLY disagree with your assessment that reeks of the trademark bitterness often displayed by femi-natzis, again, even if it were true, this woman clearly does not belong in either of the highest positions of this country because she is not one of those RARE females that has shown she is worthy of the chance to lead a nation.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by justamomma]

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 02:55 PM
Hey, Jam. How are you doing?
I can understand your point #1 but points #2 and #3 I have to say disappointed and frustrated me.

Originally posted by justamomma
2. Women tend to base decisions on emotion REGARDLESS of if they are aware of this or not; not to mention she JUST had a baby. It takes AT LEAST a year for a womans hormones to calm back down...

This really threw us back to the last century and is something I would expect to hear from a male chauvinist. This basically implies women are nothing but emotional tampons incapable of rational, intelligent decision making because 'they're hormonal.' We might as well say she shouldn't be vice president because she might make a bad decision during a PMS fit. Come on now. I don't see anyone saying we shouldn't vote men into office because what if they are testosterone crazed hormonal war hungry apes. Which is probably a lot closer to the truth than 'Oh those hormonal emotional women' as history seems to support more than not.

3. She has two children of school age and a newborn who need their mother, not a nanny.

When are children ever an issue for men? Yes, her children need their mother and their mother they will have. They also have a father. I've never seen parental issues come up with a male candidate. Palin does have a husband, as in, the children have a father as well. So woman should refrain from career pursuits or serving their country if they have young children? The father cannot help? Only men with young children are allowed to be candidates? This is essentially what your comment implies.

Male candidates: The sky's the limit.
Female candidates: Get thee to a nursery.

The rest I won't worry about and agree with you in some aspects but the female, hormone, and child issues really made me wince. Judge her all you want on her political merits and short comings but the other things should not be a factor for anyone and it should especially not be held against only one gender in politics.

Edit to add this:

Originally posted by justamomma
meaning she was doing what she SHOULD BE doing... being a supportive mom and not so much a governor).


Why can't she be both? Who are you to tell her or any female what they 'should' be doing? It's only an either or?

[edit on 10/4/2008 by AshleyD]

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 03:35 PM
notice how they always say, well i would have voted for hillary or i'm not her fan but she's better than palin, and so on, whatever excuse is necessary. and this is done while sporting an avatar that appears to be a woman having an orgasm. like...guess what...that's what we're good for! and if we don't agree that that is our one and only feature of value, we're obviously frigid dykes and lesbians or as that one website put it, cracking nuts between our thighs. (nevermind that we have husbands and kids of our own and are completely heterosexual! any AND I DO MEAN ANY, stereotype will suffice)

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 04:23 PM

Originally posted by undo
notice how they always say, well i would have voted for hillary or i'm not her fan but she's better than palin, and so on, whatever excuse is necessary.

When I see the constant contrast between Hillary and Sarah, I can't help but think it is a subconscious way of implying there is only room for one female at the top. I won't derail the thread any further but I guess it just bothers me.

*Editing out the last paragraph. Don't want to derail any further. lol

[edit on 10/4/2008 by AshleyD]

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 04:56 PM

Originally posted by AshleyDHey, Jam. How are you doing?
I can understand your point #1 but points #2 and #3 I have to say disappointed and frustrated me.

I am doing quite well, thank you. Hope the same can be said for you.

I understand how my view tends to disappoint and frustrate a lot of women these days, but really that is not my problem. It is actually a view based on rationality and confidence in who I am as a woman.

To address your reply to my #2, I did not state that a woman was incapable of logical thinking. I WILL state though, that it is in a woman's nature (as a nurturer and caregiver) to act on emotional ties when push comes to shove.

Palin has done nothing to prove that she can set aside emotional ties in order to make decisions and/or come to conclusions based on rational thinking, and in fact she has done quite the opposite (which I will be glad to point out if you haven't noticed because your emotional ties are clouding your rationality

When are children ever an issue for men?

I "SEE" what you are trying to say, but to dwell on this will lead away from the issue that was brought up about the candidate. I would be happy to discuss elsewhere though.

Male candidates: The sky's the limit.
Female candidates: Get thee to a nursery.

Almost.. Your emotions are clouding your reason here
. I do not see this issue of gender as black and white and if you weren't so disappointed and frustrated with my previous post, you would have seen this.

By the way, I HAVE to work an "outside" job, but my "sky" is in raising my children. Making sure that my job doesn't detract from our precious time together is helping to shape two happy and secure boys into adult men that I will be proud to send out into the world. I have no doubt that they will touch the world in a positive way that will in essence have been my positive and more effective impact on the world.

The issues she can somewhat coherently spew out are not revolutionary, and in fact are just the regurgitated views of the same old thing we have had.. just seems different to people because it isn't coming from an old white dude.

This is as much as I am willing to say on this topic. These ARE the fact, but continuing on to draw conclusions about her personal character as a mother I would agree is pointless. I think it is relevant, but I don't think it is my place to attack her as a mother. She has beautiful and healthy children. I don't doubt that this will not change simply because she busy is being VP.

Judge her all you want on her political merits and short comings but the other things should not be a factor for anyone and it should especially not be held against only one gender in politics.

Thanks for the advice. I disagree, but duly noted.

Who are you to tell her or any female what they 'should' be doing?

Eh, I'll agree with this point. My emotions as a mother were getting in the way of approaching the subject in a more reasonable way.

I will say though that she has a very important role already and taking on another full time and demanding role when nothing new other than the "image" is being brought to the table, it *is* an unwise decision... therefore, it makes me question the decisions she would make about the country.... and adding: IMHO!!

edited to add: had to add "not" to the statement "I don't doubt that this will not change simply because she's busy blah blah"

[edit on 4-10-2008 by justamomma]

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by undo

This is why politics in this country, as it is, has become pointless. It causes people to see a dividing line and encourages them to perceive things in only black and white.

I feel perfectly fine disagreeing (vehemently, in fact... me being a woman with emotions and passion
) with the stances Senator Clinton takes on issues and at the same time being able to recognize her areas of strength.

I can say a lot of great things about Palin. She has charm and despite the fact that I disagree with her being VP, especially being a mother of 3 children who are still needing the nurturing and full attention of their mother, I do believe that she loves children and when she started out on her political journey, it was originally done for the right decisions.

I can also say that it appears she is not doing this because she has some sick, twisted need for control, but rather that she has made the decision to be McCains running mate based on emotions rather than rational thinking. This does not an evil person make, but it also does not mean that she is a capable leader worthy of running this country (even in the 2nd position).

[edit on 4-10-2008 by justamomma]

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 05:20 PM
reply to post by justamomma

Thanks for your thoughts. Just a quick note because I see how it came across to you due to your reply. 'You' was a general term when I said things like 'Who are you to tell another female..' and 'Judge her all you want...' It wasn't specifically directed at you- I've seen many people mention the same things directed to Palin.

Anyways, I won't harp on it. I actually quit my job as a flight attendant after having my son. However, I did it because it was my choice. On the other hand, Palin seems to even have the MSM using her motherhood status against her. It just seemed terribly unfair, IMO, and is a slap in the face to working mothers everywhere.

Well enough of that for now. Back to the debate points.

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 05:31 PM
reply to post by AshleyD

No worries.. I didn't take offense and you were right. I am glad you pointed it out because it is hard sometimes to remember to keep personal feelings at bay, especially as a mother.

I hope you see from my latest post to Undo that I am not trying to contribute to the pointless slander of a person's personal character. I honestly do, as a mother, question the decisions of a woman who sacrifices the time with her children in order to be "the new image" for something that IS the same old thing. She has, maybe unintentionally, let herself get caught up in the hype and excitement of all of this and if she would sit back, be honest with herself, and think rationally, she would realize that she is nothing more than a tool they are using to try and win the election.

So, her emotions are already affecting her ability to make wise decisions and that worries me. If she had new ideas that weren't regurgitations of the same old thing, then maybe I could understand her decision to take on the demanding role.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by justamomma]

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 06:25 PM
This sexist cry out coming from the right is just one more example of the McPalin hypocrisy express. The manner in which they treated Hillary when she began her campaign and when she was sky high was just unbelievable, now that Hillaries gone they dump a female into the VP spot to get more of that women vote, they feel its necessary to highlight the "discrimmination" they are "so" concerned about.

The "sexist cry", just another tactic to bring in those female votes, and any woman who isnt from the right finds themselves believing in this show the right is putting on here, especially those hill voters, you better wake up, because it is darn obvious that Palin is the icon of sexism if anything.

What a joke, I mean seriously, if the mccain express gets voted in I tell ya, we have surely lowered our standards in this nation.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by southern_Guardian]

posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 06:54 PM
Undo I really don't understand the angle and extremity you are taking here. Not sure if you read my last post or just decided to not reply, but I will take another opportunity to say something.

I fully embrace equality for all women, in all respect, in all avenues of life. If you feel there is a prejudice against women in any aspect of our society, then I fully encourage your efforts to combat it. I will fight along side you.

  • I have absolutely no hangups with a women being VP or President.

For a while my plan was to vote for a female presidential candidate. I am no longer able to. *Nope, wasn't Hillary*.

All I am saying is that many seem to be focusing on the superficial. The way many seem to of rated her success in this debate, resembles the way judges would in a beauty pageant. *I have absolutely no qualms with the fact she participated in that beauty pageant*. That's irrelevant to this election. So why are so many treating this debate as if it were a beauty pageant still? I mean, for crying out loud, people are spinning her use of winks as proof she is more warm and human then Biden. Come on, we should all be focusing on what she actually said, not on how much better she sounded and looked compared to her disastrous interviews...

I can both believe she is completely unqualified as a VP, and at the same time believe women are just as qualified as men. It almost seems as though any man that doesn't want Palin to win is sexist to you.

[edit on 4-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in