Sarah Palin Debate Flowchart


Thank God I'm alive!
I received this in my email today.

Link Removed

Excellent prompt. Too bad Biden doesn't have something similar to follow:

McCaskill then turns her comments to Joe Biden, the Deleware Senator and also the vice presidential running mate to Barack Obama and she states "has a tendency to talk forever and sometimes say things that are kind of stupid.”
Easy to find Democrats saying things critical of the current Democrat ticket. Claire McCaskill is a Democrat Senator from Missourri.
Wake up America: Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., Says Joe Biden Sometimes Says 'Stupid Things'
Joe Biden didn't exactly shine either, but he was far less unimpressive than Palin was. Not only did she not answer most of the questions asked of her, but everything she said sounded rehearsed.
I was not impressed with Biden. I thought for all the great experience he was supposed to have he did not do a lot better than Palin to me. For someone that no one wants to give credit to, stuck in front of cameras on t.v. seen around the world she keep here composer and did all right.
Last edited:
Beats the hell out of lying throughout their teeth. Sarah is of high moral values, Biden is a life time poly -tick attached to a moraless lawyer!!!!!:to_pick_ones_nose:
What amuses me about debates is that they are nothing more than contests about who is better at saying what the people want to hear while not actually answering the questions asked of them.
What I like about here is her lack of experience. All the rest are career politicians and we all know we have the best politicians money can buy.
What I like about here is her lack of experience. All the rest are career politicians and we all know we have the best politicians money can buy.

So you must love Obama then, right? What you see as an asset, I see as a liability. I've said it repeatedly, and I'll say it again. Between Biden, Obama, McCain, and Palin, Americans don't have any good choices at all in this year's election. God help us.
I think that people tend to expect the impossible out of political leaders. We want them to know what they're doing but not be "part of the Washington establishment". We want them to take stands on particular issues, but if they really think about their stance and end up modifying it, then they're waffling. We want them to attack the other guy, but still seem respectable. They shouldn't be influenced by special interests, unless it's our special interests (NRA, etc) in which case it's perfectly fine.

We want our Congressional leaders to listen to their constituents, but they should not miss votes in Washington, but they should not stay in Washington too long, but they should not lounge around at home.

There seems to be a lot of paradoxes here...we're saying, "No, do this!" "No, do that!" "No, do both of these at the same time and then five more things!"

What human can possibly live up to these crazy standards? Certainly they need to get things done efficiently and without being corrupt, but a lot of the expectations that we put on them are extraneous to doing the actual job. We need to recognize that these are mortal individuals that we elect to work within a much larger system which demands compromise at every level. It's like marriage - if you get someone who you somewhat agree with, consider yourself lucky.
He did even less to help himself. There were a number of issues he could have went on the attack with but did not. Sometimes it seems as if he wants to loose the election.

I don't think it's so much him wanting to lose as it is him not wanting to resort to mudslinging. I admire that, but you've got to do what you've got to do, and he's not doing what he's got to do.

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Latest member