[quote]rainjack wrote:
borrek wrote:
rainjack wrote:
borrek wrote:
he was under a time limit and chose to address the questions asked. no one is moving mountains in 90 seconds
WTF are you even talking about?
its not that hard, try to follow. There was a time limit to his responses and he chose to stay on topic, so instead of waxing nostalgic about 35 years of politics, he instead did the right thing and controlled himself.
you’re delirious if you think he struggled to hold his own. Name one question or issue that he didn’t have an instant and comprehensive answer on. None.
Plus you guys need to make up your mind, is she a mother of five, or is she a governor with experience requisite for this stage of politics? Seems like you want whichever is most convenient.
You don’t get it, kiddo. He was trying to use the Constitution to make a point. He invoked the wrong article. A man who has been in office for 35 fucking years has no clue which part of the constitution talks about his fucking job. The stress of a time limit caused him to forget?
He waxed nostalgic every fucking chance he got. Which debate were you watching?
You are the one with following problems.
[/quote]
Uhm… a clause in article 1 section 3 delineates the powers of the VP in the senate. How is that the wrong article to invoke when the question is about the idea of the VP as a part of the legislature and not the executive?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
borrek wrote:
…is she a mother of five, or is she a governor with experience requisite for this stage of politics?..
Why is it so far beyond your reach to think that the two are not mutually exclusive?[/quote]
Because the point is when her experience is called into question, shes a mighty governor with executive know-how. When judging how well she does against someone with real experience she is “a mother of 5”
I made no remark about the two being mutually exclusive, its about altered expectations at different times.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
borrek wrote:
rainjack wrote:
borrek wrote:
he was under a time limit and chose to address the questions asked. no one is moving mountains in 90 seconds
WTF are you even talking about?
its not that hard, try to follow. There was a time limit to his responses and he chose to stay on topic, so instead of waxing nostalgic about 35 years of politics, he instead did the right thing and controlled himself.
you’re delirious if you think he struggled to hold his own. Name one question or issue that he didn’t have an instant and comprehensive answer on. None.
Plus you guys need to make up your mind, is she a mother of five, or is she a governor with experience requisite for this stage of politics? Seems like you want whichever is most convenient.
You don’t get it, kiddo. He was trying to use the Constitution to make a point. He invoked the wrong article. A man who has been in office for 35 fucking years has no clue which part of the constitution talks about his fucking job. The stress of a time limit caused him to forget?
He waxed nostalgic every fucking chance he got. Which debate were you watching?
You are the one with following problems.
[/quote]
Wrong article…so what? Palin was talking about General “McKlellan” that doesn’t make whatever point she was making invaild because she had the wrong name.
McCain threw out his 26 years every chance he got, but it is bad if Biden invokes his experience? Interesting.
[quote]Demiajax wrote:
Uhm… a clause in article 1 section 3 delineates the powers of the VP in the senate. How is that the wrong article to invoke when the question is about the idea of the VP as a part of the legislature and not the executive?
[/quote]
Go read the transcripts. He was referring to his powers given to him as a member of the Executive Branch, and said that Article 1 was what delineated the powers of the executive branch.
He was wrong. Article 2 delineates the powers of the Executive Branch.
If he were referring to the powers granted to him as a member of the legislative branch, he would have been correct - but that is not what he was doing.
[quote]borrek wrote:
rainjack wrote:
borrek wrote:
rainjack wrote:
borrek wrote:
he was under a time limit and chose to address the questions asked. no one is moving mountains in 90 seconds
WTF are you even talking about?
its not that hard, try to follow. There was a time limit to his responses and he chose to stay on topic, so instead of waxing nostalgic about 35 years of politics, he instead did the right thing and controlled himself.
you’re delirious if you think he struggled to hold his own. Name one question or issue that he didn’t have an instant and comprehensive answer on. None.
Plus you guys need to make up your mind, is she a mother of five, or is she a governor with experience requisite for this stage of politics? Seems like you want whichever is most convenient.
You don’t get it, kiddo. He was trying to use the Constitution to make a point. He invoked the wrong article. A man who has been in office for 35 fucking years has no clue which part of the constitution talks about his fucking job. The stress of a time limit caused him to forget?
He waxed nostalgic every fucking chance he got. Which debate were you watching?
You are the one with following problems.
Wrong article…so what? Palin was talking about General “McKlellan” that doesn’t make whatever point she was making invaild because she had the wrong name.
McCain threw out his 26 years every chance he got, but it is bad if Biden invokes his experience? Interesting. [/quote]
You said he didn’t wax nostalgic.
He did.
Please. Either go to bed and get some rest, of keep up.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Demiajax wrote:
Uhm… a clause in article 1 section 3 delineates the powers of the VP in the senate. How is that the wrong article to invoke when the question is about the idea of the VP as a part of the legislature and not the executive?
Go read the transcripts. He was referring to his powers given to him as a member of the Executive Branch, and said that Article 1 was what delineated the powers of the executive branch.
He was wrong. Article 2 delineates the powers of the Executive Branch.
If he were referring to the powers granted to him as a member of the legislative branch, he would have been correct - but that is not what he was doing.
[/quote]
so his point is somehow now wrong, and the powers granted by the constitution as a whole are different?
[quote]borrek wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Demiajax wrote:
Uhm… a clause in article 1 section 3 delineates the powers of the VP in the senate. How is that the wrong article to invoke when the question is about the idea of the VP as a part of the legislature and not the executive?
Go read the transcripts. He was referring to his powers given to him as a member of the Executive Branch, and said that Article 1 was what delineated the powers of the executive branch.
He was wrong. Article 2 delineates the powers of the Executive Branch.
If he were referring to the powers granted to him as a member of the legislative branch, he would have been correct - but that is not what he was doing.
so his point is somehow now wrong, and the powers granted by the constitution as a whole are different?
you guys are stretching realll hard here
[/quote]
I never said he was wrong. I said that a man who provides himself on his 35 years working in the legislative branch should know which article of the constitution covers which branch.
so his point is somehow now wrong, and the powers granted by the constitution as a whole are different?
you guys are stretching realll hard here
I never said he was wrong. I said that a man who provides himself on his 35 years working in the legislative branch should know which article of the constitution covers which branch.
I think that was a noteworthy gaff.
I think you need to start making sense.
[/quote]
If you agree with me that his point wasn’t wrong simply because he mentioned the wrong article, then obviously I’m making sense.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
She has real experience in the executive branch of government. He has real experience in the legislative branch. Do you happen to know which of the two branches each is presently campaigning to be a member of?[/quote]
George Bush was an executive and that didn’t work out so well. Also, I disagree that she has “real” experience.
…and you know we can actually discuss things without trying to be cute right?
so his point is somehow now wrong, and the powers granted by the constitution as a whole are different?
you guys are stretching realll hard here
I never said he was wrong. I said that a man who provides himself on his 35 years working in the legislative branch should know which article of the constitution covers which branch.
I think that was a noteworthy gaff.
I think you need to start making sense.
If you agree with me that his point wasn’t wrong simply because he mentioned the wrong article, then obviously I’m making sense.
[/quote]
Are you just fucking ignorant, or are you on medication?
I never made any comment one way or another as to whether he was right or wrong. Not once. I didn’t listen to the rest of his monologue after he opened with such a glaring mistake.
He fucked up the constitution. He’s been in office for 35 fucking years. He should know the constitution by now.
Are you going to obsess over this all night? Let it go, scooter. Let it go.
I’m evidently smart enough to know what “waxing nostalgic” means.
That is more than can be said for you.
lol is this where I get all flustered and quote a dictionary or something? I know what it means and you know that.[/quote]
I know a lot of shit. But I have no clue what you know, or don’t. All I can do is go off what you say/type. So far in this thread, a drunk teenager would look pretty intelligent next to you.