|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
|
[Poll]
|
Vice President Debate
|
| Sen. Joe Biden won |
|
| Gov. Sarah Palin won |
|
| Draw |
|
Total Votes : 74
|
(last vote on : 10/7/2008 3:28:06 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Vice President Debate - 10/5/2008 10:38:09 PM
|
|
|
buckifn
Posts: 1786
Joined: 5/23/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Did anyone catch what Palin said about homosexual rights?
_____________________________
Do you think in hell anyone will care about that?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vice President Debate - 10/6/2008 12:02:31 AM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3549
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
sarah won no doubt. I liked how she would smile, when Biden was saying something, and she was getting ready to slam him. Which she did, many times.
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vice President Debate - 10/6/2008 1:59:22 AM
|
|
|
TaoPoohBear
Posts: 554
Joined: 1/18/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
I don't understand why Biden's impassioned response regarding the powers of the Vice President hasn't upset more people here. His answer was: quote:
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
For a man who has been in the Senate for 35 years and has served on the judiciary committee I find this to be very disturbing that he does not has a better understanding of the Constitution, let alone the powers and responsibilities of the office he hopes to attain.
From Article 1 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: quote:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
As can clearly be seen, Biden is wrong and as much vitriol as he displayed for Vice President Cheney, Cheney has only done his job according to the Constitution.
Well how about it? What do you Dems have to say about your guy?
Not sure what you're ranting about.
Do you mean this?
quote:
During the twentieth century, the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president's administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed. United States Senate website
Or this?
quote:
The Constitution provides for a president pro tempore to preside over the Senate in the absence of the vice president.
In 1947 a law changed the order of succession to place the Speaker of the House in line after the vice president, followed by the president pro tempore, and then the secretary of state and other cabinet officers in order of their departments' creation. This is the system in effect today.
Before 1890, the Senate elected a president pro tempore only for the period when the vice president would be absent. Since 1890, the president pro tempore holds office continuously until the election of another president pro tempore.
The president pro tempore designates other senators to preside in his absence, generally new members of the majority party.
The Constitution is quite unspecific in its definition of the vice president's role as presiding officer, beyond casting tie-breaking votes.
Unlike the vice president, the president pro tempore is a duly elected member of the Senate, able to speak and vote on any issue. This official was therefore in a better position to assume leadership in the body, particularly in that era long before the creation of the posts of majority and minority leaders and party whips. (The vice president is not at liberty to address the Senate, except by unanimous consent. Nor should any senator speak while presiding, other than to make necessary rulings and announcements or to maintain order.)U.S. Senate website
Or BOTH? 
The Constitution says the Senate will choose a President pro tempore in the absence of the Vice President or when he (the Vice President) shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
Guess what, the VP's absent ALL THE TIME these days (since at least 1953!)
quote:
In 1953, Vice President Richard M. Nixon changed the vice presidency by moving his chief office from the Capitol to the White House, by directing his attention to executive functions, and by attending Senate sessions only at critical times when his vote, or ruling from the chair, might be necessary. Vice presidents since Nixon's time have followed his example.
When we consider that the vice president used to be the Senate's regular presiding officer, we can better understand why the Constitution further provided that in the absence of the vice president the Senate could choose a president pro tempore to perform the duties of the chair. Pro tempore is a Latin term meaning "for the time being"; thus, the occupant of the position was conceived as a temporary presiding officer.U.S. Senate website
You honestly don't seem to know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vice President Debate - 10/6/2008 2:23:03 AM
|
|
|
campbe33
Posts: 422
Joined: 10/4/2008
From: Idaho
Status: offline
|
I don't know what all the fuss is about. If we as Christians are voting from a truly biblical standpoint none of the candidates are worthy of our vote. If we are to be true in our evalution of what is right biblically we can vote either way and not be wrong. What one person considers sinful might not be considered sinful to another, but that does not mean either are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vice President Debate - 10/6/2008 1:24:23 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1019
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dubya
It seems you like to complicate things by recent custom,etc. But the Constitution has NOT been changed in this regard.
Please explain to me how you can say I don't know what I am talking about when you seem intent on ignoring the VERY VERY simple and unambiguous sentence in the Constitution.
Learn to read. It can be very rewarding.
Out of curiosity, why did you say this -
quote:
From Article 1 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: quote:
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
AND THEN THIS
quote:
As can clearly be seen, Biden is wrong and as much vitriol as he displayed for Vice President Cheney, Cheney has only done his job according to the Constitution.
What has Cheney done according to the Constitution?
Surely you can't mean President pro Tempore!!!!!
I know it is hard for you to calm down and actually read one word at a time so I will say it real slow:
The Vice President (Cheney) of the United States shall be President of the Senate
that means the Vice President of the United States will preside over the Senate.
The President pro tempore is chosen by the Senate to preside in the Vice President's absence.
This means that Cheney was simply doing his job by presiding over the Senate even though Joe Biden so vociferously insists that he only has the right to do that in order to break a tie.
When anyone with a third grade education reads the Consitution it can clearly be seen that the VP can assume the responsibility of presiding over the Senate any time he desires. He only is allowed to vote in the event of a tie.
I hope that is clear. I don't blame you for not understanding. After all, Joe Biden doesn't seem to understand and he claims to have a high IQ. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vice President Debate - 10/6/2008 11:08:29 PM
|
|
|
rhippie
Posts: 628
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Rich The Hippie
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: campbe33
I don't know what all the fuss is about. If we as Christians are voting from a truly biblical standpoint none of the candidates are worthy of our vote. If we are to be true in our evalution of what is right biblically we can vote either way and not be wrong. What one person considers sinful might not be considered sinful to another, but that does not mean either are wrong.
WHAT???
_____________________________
Stand up for what's right....even if you're standing alone
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vice President Debate - 10/7/2008 3:01:16 AM
|
|
|
campbe33
Posts: 422
Joined: 10/4/2008
From: Idaho
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rhippie
quote:
ORIGINAL: campbe33
I don't know what all the fuss is about. If we as Christians are voting from a truly biblical standpoint none of the candidates are worthy of our vote. If we are to be true in our evalution of what is right biblically we can vote either way and not be wrong. What one person considers sinful might not be considered sinful to another, but that does not mean either are wrong.
WHAT???
What I'm saying is all the candidates have flaws one would might consider sinful. You might think eating meat is a sin, but I might think eating meat is o.k.. Who's right and who's wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Vice President Debate - 10/7/2008 3:34:28 AM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 283
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
sarah won no doubt. I liked how she would smile, when Biden was saying something, and she was getting ready to slam him. Which she did, many times.
Who won depends on which party you support for the most part, but all the polls taken by the news organizations (i.e. not a website poll) -- usually of undecided voters or independents -- gave the debate victory to Biden, by as much as 2-1 in one case. There was not one poll that gave Palin a majority.
Since the tracking polls have all moved in Obama's direction since the VP debate was fully factored into the results (today) I would be willing to bet that those snap polls on the debate itself were accurate. Palin didn't turn the election into a rout for Obama, but it wasn't the game-changer McCain was hoping (praying?) for.
So now we're on to character assassination. Aren't elections nice? 
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
