Debate Showdown: Biden vs. Ryan in the 2012 Vice Presidential Debate

[Jack21222]

On substance, I thought that each of them spent their time mischaracterizing everything.

While I largely agree with this, I think Ryan went a bit further with his mischaracterizations than Biden did.

Here is the link to the politifact.com article on the debate: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-vice-presidential-debate-between-joe/

To test my hypothesis, I'll break down the responses that Politifact checked:

Joe Biden:

True: 1
Mostly true: 1
Half-true: 5
Mostly false: 1
False: 0
Pants on fire: 0

Paul Ryan:

True: 0
Mostly true: 2
Half-true: 2
Mostly false: 3
False: 1
Pants on fire: 1

Overall, Biden told a lot of half-truths, had two that were at least mostly true, and only one that was at least mostly false.

Ryan had two half-truths, two that were at least mostly true, and five that was at least mostly false.

So, according to politifact.com, my first impression was correct, that Ryan stretched the truth more than Biden did.

 

[edward]

I linked to this article from another which said that WH sources had given the press release to CNN and other news.

But the WH had already made it clear that it was pre-planned, that trumps whatever interpretation she had.

He said "it wasn't a mob action" he said "extremist militias" were suspected. That's saying it wasn't "protestors".

Obama has been consistent that it wasn't protestors, according to your links.

I think the more important point is that we are still using private security forces in violent areas of the ME. Libya didn't want them on the ground.

The State department had to rely on its own security personnel who simply were not prepared to defend against this kind of military action.

WASHINGTON — Lost amid the election-year wrangling over the militants’ attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya, is a complex back story involving growing regional resentment against heavily armed American private security contractors, increased demands on State Department resources and mounting frustration among diplomats over ever-tighter protections that they say make it more difficult to do their jobs.

The Benghazi attacks, in which the United States ambassador and three other Americans were killed, comes at the end of a 10-year period in which the State Department — sending its employees into a lengthening list of war zones and volatile regions — has regularly ratcheted up security for its diplomats. The aggressive measures used by private contractors eventually led to shootings in Afghanistan and Iraq that provoked protests, including an episode involving guards from an American security company, Blackwater, that left at least 17 Iraqis dead in Baghdad’s Nisour Square.

The ghosts of that shooting clearly hung over Benghazi. Earlier this year, the new Libyan government had expressly barred Blackwater-style armed contractors from flooding into the country. “The Libyans were not keen to have boots on the ground,” one senior State Department official said.

That forced the State Department to rely largely on its own diplomatic security arm, which officials have said lacks the resources to provide adequate protection in war zones.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/49400090/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/

This put Obama in between a rock and a hard spot. He could have sent in Marines, but he had earlier promised that there would be no American troops on the ground in Libya.


To make matters worse the politically motivated rants and investigations blew the cover of the many CIA operations in Libya.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

 

[Pythagorean]

But one could argue that is semantics too.

It IS semantics: specifically, rhetoric. That's the problem. It's an abuse of connotation.

I don't think there is any proof that a baby/fetus becomes conscious upon being born. Some say consciousness develops before birth, some say it is debatable even if a newborn baby is conscious in the way we think of the word, even though we still regard it as a human being at that point. Some also point out that the fetus could be developed enough to be conscious, but is asleep within the womb for the most part. Then there's the question of when does the fetus feel pain? This from what I understand isn't possible until some point in the third trimester, as prior to that the part of the brain for processing pain isn't developed yet and the nerve pathways connecting nerves to the brain aren't yet fully developed.

Sure, consciousness is ill-defined. I did not mean magical black-box consiousness. I just meant wakefulness. The baby is "woken up" and is actually more alert then they will be in the next couple weeks for the minutes after birth. Some stipulate this is the important moment where babies learn to latch-on properly and form first attachment with their mother.

And yes, there is evidence of it. I'm sure it's not difficult to google scholar it, but I'll dig something up later and edit this post.

 

[Oltz]

I am a bit surprised this thread has gone this far without anyone mentioning the fact that Biden interrupted Ryan between 80 and 100 times (depending on who counts it) and he was interrupted another 31 times by the moderator. I find it hard to get any points across when I can't finish a sentence I imagine it must have been frustrating and am impressed with his composure.

Also has anyone else heard that Obama was actually at the moderators wedding and that her now ex-husband has a position in the administration?

here is a video that has 85 as its count.
http://nation.foxnews.com/joe-biden/2012/10/13/montage-all-85-joe-biden-debate-interruptions

 

[Alfi]

wow - 1991 - Obama attended a wedding.

Is this a 6 degree of separation thing or some real serious future forethought of Obama?

But I do remember saying to my wife during the debate, 'this moderator seems to be biased'.

 

[Evo]

We'll close this now since the second Presidential debate is tomorrow.