VP debate game thread

[allvol123]

Yea I can't see the leeway you are giving him TT. I think he meant what he said and said what he meant, seems a foolish position to me. The adjusting what people owe on their house thingy was full blown crazy to.

[rjd970]

Originally Posted by volinbham

Do you still think she's a moron?

My opinion hasn't changed on either. I wish she would have actually answered some of the questions posed to her and I wish Biden would have toned down the Bush referendum attacks some.

[TennTradition]

Originally Posted by volsforever27

The fact that McCain supports anything doesn't make it correct. He didn't mention anything that man may be partially to blame, or that there are cyclical changes, he said man was to blame. Period. Nothing else. And yes, it is an outrageous claim to me and many other people.

Maybe I overestimate the knowledge of those who believe in man-made global warming. His point was clear to me...that man has does indeed have responsibility for changes in our climate...and full responsibility for (man-made) global warming. Of course many factors affect climate. Man does not bear full responsibility for the climate. Obviously. But "global warming" means mans impact on the environment inside a political debate...does (man-made) global warming exist or does it not. Biden says man does. That is how I took it. I'm willing to give you that might not be how certain members of his party may take it.

As for the McCain reference, I only brought that up to serve as a data point for my assertion that Biden is appealing to more than just the far left of his party in making that statement (and that it is viewed as plausible and not outrageous by more than just the far left).

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by rjd970

Maybe, but no way that accounts for all of it. I would say a good portion of that is spent on contractors, mercenaries (blackwater types), and waste where we have no idea where it went.

Do you realize that works out to 8/1000th the amount of money we are spending in Afghanistan compared to Iraq? I find it hard to believe that even if we redirected only a tenth of the resources in Iraq to Afghanistan we couldn't have hunted down Bin Laden sometime in the last 7 years. Hell, we could have bought Pakistan's cooperation with those kind of resources.

...of course, if it is really true.

at the time Bin Laden got away, we were still debating about Iraq. There was plenty of resources and not enough guts.

The disparity in force types makes an extreme difference in cost. SF types just aren't that expensive.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

[TennTradition]

Originally Posted by allvol123

Yea I can't see the leeway you are giving him TT. I think he meant what he said and said what he meant, seems a foolish position to me. The adjusting what people owe on their house thingy was full blown crazy to.

Fair enough...I can't truly claim I know exactly what he means. I think that I know what he meant, but I could be wrong. Maybe he means that man was responsible for every degree of average temperature increase from 1950 to 1998. He would be wrong in that claim. Man has attributed at most about 0.5 °C of that rise, according to most experts.

[volsforever27]

Originally Posted by TennTradition

Maybe I overestimate the knowledge of those who believe in man-made global warming. His point was clear to me...that man has does indeed have responsibility for changes in our climate...and full responsibility for (man-made) global warming. Of course many factors affect climate. Man does not bear full responsibility for the climate. Obviously. But "global warming" means mans impact on the environment inside a political debate...does (man-made) global warming exist or does it not. Biden says man does. That is how I took it. I'm willing to give you that might not be how certain members of his party may take it.

As for the McCain reference, I only brought that up to serve as a data point for my assertion that Biden is appealing to more than just the far left of his party in making that statement (and that it is viewed as plausible and not outrageous by more than just the far left).

We're been down this road before, and I won't rehash it. I think he meant that man was to blame, and to blame only, but we'll just agree to disagree.

[rjd970]

I would have to disagree with Biden on the global warming thing. It's probably happening for a variety of reasons, but we are definitely not the primary facilitator.

His answer seemed to suggest humans are the primary cause.

[TennTradition]

Originally Posted by volsforever27

We're been down this road before, and I won't rehash it. I think he meant that man was to blame, and to blame only, but we'll just agree to disagree.

See my post just above yours...I hope it clarifies my position. I agree....it wouldn't be good to debate the details of how much man is to blame in this thread.

[KB5252]

TT, I have to say that the way Biden answered that question, something to the effect of "absolutely, man is to blame for global warming", seemed to indicate we are the biggest factor, when the science seems to indicate that we are a very small factor in a warming climate (if at all).

[TennTradition]

Originally Posted by KB5252

TT, I have to say that the way Biden answered that question, something to the effect of "absolutely, man is to blame for global warming", seemed to indicate we are the biggest factor, when the science seems to indicate that we are a very small factor in a warming climate (if at all).

He could have meant that - there is no way for me to know. But, to me the statement "absolutely, man is to blame for global warming" means ... "yes, global warming is attributable" ... as opposed to the views that man has no responsibility.

I would suggest that if science has but one voice, that voice has said man does has contributed to the greenhouse effect and thus warmed the planet. The same science that says man has only contributed about 0.5°C since the pre-industrial era also says that temperatures could rise another 3°C over the next 100 years or so (on global average) over that which they would be without man's influence (that means add that to the sun's usual ups and downs, roughly). I took Biden's statements to mean that he believes this science.

[KB5252]

Originally Posted by TennTradition

He could have meant that - there is no way for me to know. But, to me the statement "absolutely, man is to blame for global warming" means ... "yes, global warming is attributable" ... as opposed to the views that man has no responsibility.

I would suggest that if science has but one voice, that voice has said man does has contributed to the greenhouse effect and thus warmed the planet. The same science that says man has only contributed about 0.5°C since the pre-industrial era also says that temperatures could rise another 3°C over the next 100 years or so (on global average) over that which they would be without man's influence (that means add that to the sun's usual ups and downs, roughly). I took Biden's statements to mean that he believes this science.

Maybe so, but to attribute global warming to man and give no mention to the extent that man is responsible is irresponsible and gives the wrong impression to a very uneducated population on the issue.

It sets the debate up for an argument on the subjects merits hindering any real effective policy that is economically and ecologically viable.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by rjd970

I would have to disagree with Biden on the global warming thing. It's probably happening for a variety of reasons, but we are definitely not the primary facilitator.

His answer seemed to suggest humans are the primary cause.

Only cause according to his answer.

[TennTradition]

Well...I'm obviously in a minority on this one. When he said it - I guess I must have heard only what made sense to me...and applied a "sanity" filter that was perhaps to fair to apply. What I heard him say didn't seem out of line with what the IPCC says, but I think that it is because I took his use of the term "global warming" to mean something very specific in the context he used it.

So, perhaps the real question should be - what does he actually believe? It is pretty hard for me to believe that he thinks the sun has nothing to do with the cycles in temperature we see and that man drives all the warming we experience. Is it man waking up in the morning and breathing out CO2 that makes the day get hotter as ..... and only coincidence that the sun happens to come up at the same time?

[TennTradition]

Originally Posted by KB5252

Maybe so, but to attribute global warming to man and give no mention to the extent that man is responsible is irresponsible and gives the wrong impression to a very uneducated population on the issue.

It sets the debate up for an argument on the subjects merits hindering any real effective policy that is economically and ecologically viable.

I still think that is because the question had more to do with is global warming attributable to man (or is all of it natural). I thought that he was just trying to make his position very clear - that man bears responsibility - as a contrast to Palin's wishy/washy answer. I'm not looking to defend him.....I just am surprised I heard something so completely different than all the others. And...I keep thinking in the back of my mind that I heard something different because I am more comfortable with saying global warming is attributable to man than are many/some others.

He probably should have chosen his words more carefully...but Palin probably shouldn't have also said that train wrecks on Main street were causing the problems on Wall street. Just as people rode Biden for being too specific with his policy wonk answers on the economy, he did the opposite here and gave a concise answer where elaborating would have been more useful, but perhaps more boring.

[KB5252]

Originally Posted by TennTradition

I still think that is because the question had more to do with is global warming attributable to man (or is all of it natural). I thought that he was just trying to make his position very clear - that man bears responsibility - as a contrast to Palin's wishy/washy answer. I'm not looking to defend him.....I just am surprised I heard something so completely different than all the others. And...I keep thinking in the back of my mind that I heard something different because I am more comfortable with saying global warming is attributable to man than are many/some others.

He probably should have chosen his words more carefully...but Palin probably shouldn't have also said that train wrecks on Main street were causing the problems on Wall street. Just as people rode Biden for being too specific with his policy wonk answers on the economy, he did the opposite here and gave a concise answer where elaborating would have been more useful, but perhaps more boring.

I respect your views on this subject greatly, however I am sick of the debate about whether it is man made or not. I am pretty sure most Americans can agree man has an effect on the environment around him. What we need to do now is try and distinguish man made vs natural/cyclical warming and try to work out a compromise instead of short selling ourselves with restraints without any real idea of the extent of our impact.

It is a very complicated issue and neither side has it right. Sadly it has become the new "controversial issue" that defines your party affiliation. Before any politician says something as strong as "it is man made without a doubt" we need to know just how true that statement is! American policy can be affected by statements like this.