Unbiased analysis of Biden's Embarrassing meltdown

[ScienceRocks]

Really? Biden had a meltdown?

People can take issue with Biden's demeanor, but he certainly did NOT have a meltdown.

This is why most people don't really take conservatives seriously when they talk at any length about matters of politics and/or public policy. They can't seem to describe events without engaging in wholesale exaggerations.

So, even THOUGH the economy has been bad for the last few years, and even THOUGH talk radio and FOX News has been railing against the president for years, President Obama was nonetheless leading in most polls. And it incensed conservatives. So, what to do? Why the answer is simple (to them, it seems). Engage in even MORE exaggerations and hyperbole.

Here's a question for people at large. What do you think happens in the minds of average people when they tune in to hear or see something that's been advertised as one thing and they find little more than hype instead? Do you think they'll be so readily fooled the next time? And the next time after that?

He was a ass clown!

 

[daveman]

I'm fairly confident I can put my ideology aside and provide an unbiased analysis of Biden's Crazy Uncle performance last night

I don't think so, bro. You are clearly one of the top, if not the top biased person on this site. You latch onto every little meaningless, nonsensical "dig" that you can without fail.

I mean, it's who you are and that's fine - but don't try to pretend you're one of the even-handed guys all of a sudden.

The true analysis of Biden's performance, is that any grown man sitting face to face with another grown man that you feel is twitsting and turning facts is good enough cause to consider him, and show that you consider him laughable and also cut him off if he's blatantly off-base. That's the essence, the "spirit" of a debate, and just because you disagree with Biden's analysis of Ryan's comments doesn't mean that his response was wrong, if he felt the way that he did about Ryan's comments.

^ that's an unbiased analysis.

Not, "oh Biden's a big poopy head because instead of sitting through what he thought were blatant lies, quietly, he had to laugh at them and interject with corrections."

It's nonsense.

If you have to utterly destroy the meaning of the word "debate" in order to claim that Biden won the debate, Biden didn't win the debate.

 

[ScienceRocks]

 

[G.T.]

I'm fairly confident I can put my ideology aside and provide an unbiased analysis of Biden's Crazy Uncle performance last night

I don't think so, bro. You are clearly one of the top, if not the top biased person on this site. You latch onto every little meaningless, nonsensical "dig" that you can without fail.

I mean, it's who you are and that's fine - but don't try to pretend you're one of the even-handed guys all of a sudden.

The true analysis of Biden's performance, is that any grown man sitting face to face with another grown man that you feel is twitsting and turning facts is good enough cause to consider him, and show that you consider him laughable and also cut him off if he's blatantly off-base. That's the essence, the "spirit" of a debate, and just because you disagree with Biden's analysis of Ryan's comments doesn't mean that his response was wrong, if he felt the way that he did about Ryan's comments.

^ that's an unbiased analysis.

Not, "oh Biden's a big poopy head because instead of sitting through what he thought were blatant lies, quietly, he had to laugh at them and interject with corrections."

It's nonsense.

If you have to utterly destroy the meaning of the word "debate" in order to claim that Biden won the debate, Biden didn't win the debate.

I didn't even comment on who won or lost in the post you quoted.

 

[daveman]

She is just as curious as the rest of us as to some details of the republican vision of how America will be better off with them in charge, we all have a pretty good idea of what we get with Obama as president, the big questions of this campaign involve the republicans and so far they have been long on "plans" but very short on details, on everything from taxation, medicare, pentagon spending, their wish for war with Iran and everything else. They are evasive on exactly what they plan to do and so they are paying the price with pointed questions. They need to fill us in or live with it.

But you give Obama a free pass for his evasiveness.

Taken by themselves, do you think the statements made by Romney/Ryan in the debates accurately reflect the current sentiment of the republican party? You know they do not, if you call Obama evasive then it is a clear example of pot and kettle. They have loudly and publicly thrown the tea party agenda under the bus to no perceptible complaint because even the tea party folks know that it's a pack of moderate lies to get votes.

So, you condemn my hypocrisy but defend your own?

Not at all surprising, really.

 

[daveman]

I don't think so, bro. You are clearly one of the top, if not the top biased person on this site. You latch onto every little meaningless, nonsensical "dig" that you can without fail.

I mean, it's who you are and that's fine - but don't try to pretend you're one of the even-handed guys all of a sudden.

The true analysis of Biden's performance, is that any grown man sitting face to face with another grown man that you feel is twitsting and turning facts is good enough cause to consider him, and show that you consider him laughable and also cut him off if he's blatantly off-base. That's the essence, the "spirit" of a debate, and just because you disagree with Biden's analysis of Ryan's comments doesn't mean that his response was wrong, if he felt the way that he did about Ryan's comments.

^ that's an unbiased analysis.

Not, "oh Biden's a big poopy head because instead of sitting through what he thought were blatant lies, quietly, he had to laugh at them and interject with corrections."

It's nonsense.

If you have to utterly destroy the meaning of the word "debate" in order to claim that Biden won the debate, Biden didn't win the debate.

I didn't even comment on who won or lost in the post you quoted.

Not directly, no -- but the way you re-defined "debate" to excuse Biden's boorish behavior makes it clear.

 

[HUGGY]

Really? Biden had a meltdown?

People can take issue with Biden's demeanor, but he certainly did NOT have a meltdown.

This is why most people don't really take conservatives seriously when they talk at any length about matters of politics and/or public policy. They can't seem to describe events without engaging in wholesale exaggerations.

So, even THOUGH the economy has been bad for the last few years, and even THOUGH talk radio and FOX News has been railing against the president for years, President Obama was nonetheless leading in most polls. And it incensed conservatives. So, what to do? Why the answer is simple (to them, it seems). Engage in even MORE exaggerations and hyperbole.

Here's a question for people at large. What do you think happens in the minds of average people when they tune in to hear or see something that's been advertised as one thing and they find little more than hype instead? Do you think they'll be so readily fooled the next time? And the next time after that?

no. there was nothing close to meltdown.

frank lives in rightwingnuthackworld.

Biden played a role that Mittens did crudely. Biden did it with pinnache. He did it with skill. His sardonic grin was a dagger in the heart of every Ryan mis-step and lie. Biden was on his "A" game and totally in control of himself and the debate.

The trouble with the right wing wack - a - moles is that they do not know when they get their asses handed to them. If you want to win against a competitor you need to be honest about what you do well and what your opponent is capable of. I hope the newGOPers carry this fantasy that "they were robbed" into the next debate.

The president has much better control than Mittens. He purposely held back and let Romney play his crazy etch a sketch bully card. In the next debate ..a town hall format ... the president will school Mittens on street style debate fighting and what happens to bullies when someone stands up to them. At this point in time I believe that the president purposefully let Mittens expose himself and the rules he wanted to play by. Romney will get a taste of what he attempted in "spades" Ha Ha.. HUGGY said a funny!

 

[G.T.]

If you have to utterly destroy the meaning of the word "debate" in order to claim that Biden won the debate, Biden didn't win the debate.

I didn't even comment on who won or lost in the post you quoted.

Not directly, no -- but the way you re-defined "debate" to excuse Biden's boorish behavior makes it clear.

oh gosh

 

[ScienceRocks]

You lose your center. LOL. WHO GIVES A FUCK IF IT FIRES UP YOUR BASE. LOL!

 

[Toro]

As an unbiased observer, it was clear to me that Obama had Biden locked in a cage for the last week and was starving him only to release him to attack Ryan during the debate. Biden kept interrupting and was annoying, at one point I thought for sure Joe would start gnawing on Ryan's forearm.

Crazy Uncle Joe kept yelling the same things over and over as if that would make the statement true or more interesting. Yes, Joe, the Afghans will handle their own security. Joe do you know that thanks to your stupid rules of engagement and complete lack of military understanding, the Afghan forces are totally infiltrated by AQ and the Tolly-baan? and yelling like you were unhappy with the Jell-o does not make them stop killing our soldiers

I wish Obama would treat people suffering from Dementia and early onset Alzheimer, like Biden, with dignity and respect.

I heard afterwards that Biden took a swing at Ryan backstage. Can you believe that?

 

[HUGGY]

If you have to utterly destroy the meaning of the word "debate" in order to claim that Biden won the debate, Biden didn't win the debate.

I didn't even comment on who won or lost in the post you quoted.

Not directly, no -- but the way you re-defined "debate" to excuse Biden's boorish behavior makes it clear.

It was Romney that re-defined "debate". He wanted to play by "Jungle Rules" and now he will die by them.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I didn't even comment on who won or lost in the post you quoted.

Not directly, no -- but the way you re-defined "debate" to excuse Biden's boorish behavior makes it clear.

It was Romney that re-defined "debate". He wanted to play by "Jungle Rules" and now he will die by them.

At least he allowed Obama to talk. Sorry Obama couldn't debate worth the shit.

 

[daveman]

Really? Biden had a meltdown?

People can take issue with Biden's demeanor, but he certainly did NOT have a meltdown.

This is why most people don't really take conservatives seriously when they talk at any length about matters of politics and/or public policy. They can't seem to describe events without engaging in wholesale exaggerations.

So, even THOUGH the economy has been bad for the last few years, and even THOUGH talk radio and FOX News has been railing against the president for years, President Obama was nonetheless leading in most polls. And it incensed conservatives. So, what to do? Why the answer is simple (to them, it seems). Engage in even MORE exaggerations and hyperbole.

Here's a question for people at large. What do you think happens in the minds of average people when they tune in to hear or see something that's been advertised as one thing and they find little more than hype instead? Do you think they'll be so readily fooled the next time? And the next time after that?

no. there was nothing close to meltdown.

frank lives in rightwingnuthackworld.

Biden played a role that Mittens did crudely. Biden did it with pinnache. He did it with skill. His sardonic grin was a dagger in the heart of every Ryan mis-step and lie. Biden was on his "A" game and totally in control of himself and the debate.

The trouble with the right wing wack - a - moles is that they do not know when they get their asses handed to them. If you want to win against a competitor you need to be honest about what you do well and what your opponent is capable of. I hope the newGOPers carry this fantasy that "they were robbed" into the next debate.

The president has much better control than Mittens. He purposely held back and let Romney play his crazy etch a sketch bully card. In the next debate ..a town hall format ... the president will school Mittens on street style debate fighting and what happens to bullies when someone stands up to them. At this point in time I believe that the president purposefully let Mittens expose himself and the rules he wanted to play by. Romney will get a taste of what he attempted in "spades" Ha Ha.. HUGGY said a funny!

Huggy said a load of leftist fantasy horseshit.

 

[daveman]

I didn't even comment on who won or lost in the post you quoted.

Not directly, no -- but the way you re-defined "debate" to excuse Biden's boorish behavior makes it clear.

oh gosh

Did you really think no one would notice?

Look at the standard dictionary definition of "debate". I'll even let you pick out which dictionary to use.

Can you claim Biden followed that?

 

[daveman]

I didn't even comment on who won or lost in the post you quoted.

Not directly, no -- but the way you re-defined "debate" to excuse Biden's boorish behavior makes it clear.

It was Romney that re-defined "debate". He wanted to play by "Jungle Rules" and now he will die by them.

You know, Affirmative Action doesn't apply to debates. The liberal doesn't get extra points for being unprepared.

 

[sakinago]

Really? Biden had a meltdown?

People can take issue with Biden's demeanor, but he certainly did NOT have a meltdown.

This is why most people don't really take conservatives seriously when they talk at any length about matters of politics and/or public policy. They can't seem to describe events without engaging in wholesale exaggerations.

So, even THOUGH the economy has been bad for the last few years, and even THOUGH talk radio and FOX News has been railing against the president for years, President Obama was nonetheless leading in most polls. And it incensed conservatives. So, what to do? Why the answer is simple (to them, it seems). Engage in even MORE exaggerations and hyperbole.

Here's a question for people at large. What do you think happens in the minds of average people when they tune in to hear or see something that's been advertised as one thing and they find little more than hype instead? Do you think they'll be so readily fooled the next time? And the next time after that?

no. there was nothing close to meltdown.

frank lives in rightwingnuthackworld.

Biden played a role that Mittens did crudely. Biden did it with pinnache. He did it with skill. His sardonic grin was a dagger in the heart of every Ryan mis-step and lie. Biden was on his "A" game and totally in control of himself and the debate.

The trouble with the right wing wack - a - moles is that they do not know when they get their asses handed to them. If you want to win against a competitor you need to be honest about what you do well and what your opponent is capable of. I hope the newGOPers carry this fantasy that "they were robbed" into the next debate.

The president has much better control than Mittens. He purposely held back and let Romney play his crazy etch a sketch bully card. In the next debate ..a town hall format ... the president will school Mittens on street style debate fighting and what happens to bullies when someone stands up to them. At this point in time I believe that the president purposefully let Mittens expose himself and the rules he wanted to play by. Romney will get a taste of what he attempted in "spades" Ha Ha.. HUGGY said a funny!

If this statement isnt biased, then I dont know which way is up any more.

 

[HUGGY]

Not directly, no -- but the way you re-defined "debate" to excuse Biden's boorish behavior makes it clear.

It was Romney that re-defined "debate". He wanted to play by "Jungle Rules" and now he will die by them.

You know, Affirmative Action doesn't apply to debates. The liberal doesn't get extra points for being unprepared.

I agree. No one does. Now that the new rules have been established Obama will have no excuses for not taking Mittens head off and shitting down his throat.

 

[G.T.]

Not directly, no -- but the way you re-defined "debate" to excuse Biden's boorish behavior makes it clear.

oh gosh

Did you really think no one would notice?

Look at the standard dictionary definition of "debate". I'll even let you pick out which dictionary to use.

Can you claim Biden followed that?

It's not that meticulous, jeebus dude. Anything, ANYTHING to disagree with "teh uber left" huh?

Do yourself a favor and go outside and have a beer with a Democrat. It's ok, dude.

 

[daveman]

It was Romney that re-defined "debate". He wanted to play by "Jungle Rules" and now he will die by them.

You know, Affirmative Action doesn't apply to debates. The liberal doesn't get extra points for being unprepared.

I agree. No one does. Now that the new rules have been established Obama will have no excuses for not taking Mittens head off and shitting down his throat.

Then you concede that Romney won the first debate?

 

[daveman]

oh gosh

Did you really think no one would notice?

Look at the standard dictionary definition of "debate". I'll even let you pick out which dictionary to use.

Can you claim Biden followed that?

It's not that meticulous, jeebus dude. Anything, ANYTHING to disagree with "teh uber left" huh?

Just when they're wrong.

Do yourself a favor and go outside and have a beer with a Democrat. It's ok, dude.

It's really simple. If you want to believe that Biden won, just say so. Mental gymnastics and torturing words isn't required...unless you're trying to convince yourself.