Who Won the Vice President Debate??

[Trivers]

What say yea?

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by Bump

I don't give a shit who wins. Socialism vs Fascism. Who cares because the good of the common man is the last thing our government is concerned with, it's only about getting richer.

But I do like what Biden said about abortion and not forcing his religious beliefs on others.

True dat...

Wow. I just ditto-ed a Bob Marley freak....wierd.

Originally Posted by patteeu

Ryan contradicted his claims by saying that his religion is what motivates him to force us all to co-sign on unsustainable defense spending in a post Cold War world and deficit expanding corportate welfare programs.

FYP, Mr. Hydrocodone-Fiend.

[R8ers]

Originally Posted by Bump

I may be a pot head (like there is anything wrong with it). But I bet I am the only one to point out your avatar, that's a reference to Major League isn't it? whoa. cool man.

If I were smoking pot I would watch that movie everyday

[Bump]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

True dat...

Wow. I just ditto-ed a Bob Marley freak....wierd.



FYP, Mr. Hydrocodone-Fiend.

color me a proud Bob Marley freak then!

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

what poll are you referring to ?

It was a joke, as in the CBS poll, a joke, when hasn't it ever been tipped to the side of the liberals ?

But on a side note, this race is closer than many liberals want to give credit to.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

It was a joke, as in the CBS poll, a joke, when hasn't it ever been tipped to the side of the liberals ?

But on a side note, this race is closer than many liberals want to give credit to.

I can't think of a single person who thinks this thing isn't close, but it isn't nearly as close as you think.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

Ha Ha, a CBS poll conducted with 100 registered democratic voters and they still can't get a major majority!

"This CBS News poll was conducted online using GfK’s web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted among anationwide random sample of 431 uncommitted voters who have agreed to watch the debate.Uncommitted voters are those who don’t yet know who they will vote for, or who have chosen a candidatebut may still change their minds.

GfK’s KnowledgePanel participants are initially chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephonenumbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or bymail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do notalready have Internet access, GfK provides at no cost a laptop and ISP connection.

This is a scientifically representative poll of uncommitted voters’ reaction to the presidential debate. The margin of sampling error could be plus or minus 5 percentage points for results based on the entire sample."

I realize that the word "scientifically" scares some of you to death, but it shouldn't preclude you from discerning the methodology.

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

"This CBS News poll was conducted online using GfK’s web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted among anationwide random sample of 431 uncommitted voters who have agreed to watch the debate.Uncommitted voters are those who don’t yet know who they will vote for, or who have chosen a candidatebut may still change their minds.

GfK’s KnowledgePanel participants are initially chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephonenumbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or bymail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do notalready have Internet access, GfK provides at no cost a laptop and ISP connection.

This is a scientifically representative poll of uncommitted voters’ reaction to the presidential debate. The margin of sampling error could be plus or minus 5 percentage points for results based on the entire sample."

I realize that the word "scientifically" scares some of you to death, but it shouldn't preclude you from discerning the methodology.

431 uncommitted voters who you do not know is telling the truth or not.

Furthermore, If any uncommitted voter could have decided by last nights debate on which party to vote for, I would call that voter unacknowledged, if not stupid.

Nothing said last night was enough to swing any vote to one side.

[ROYC75]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

I can't think of a single person who thinks this thing isn't close, but it isn't nearly as close as you think.

OK, moving right along here .........

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

431 uncommitted voters who you do not know is telling the truth or not.

Furthermore, If any uncommitted voter could have decided by last nights debate on which party to vote for, I would call that voter unacknowledged, if not stupid.

Nothing said last night was enough to swing any vote to one side.

You obviously have no clue about random sampling. It's the same format that virtually every inferential statistic is built upon.

I was going to let it slide when you obviously couldn't interpret the methodology or even the results of the poll, however, at this point it's safe to assume you haven't a clue.

[digger]

Quick who said this? (No cheating.)
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by digger12291970

Quick who said this? (No cheating.)
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

Big Bird?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by digger12291970

Quick who said this? (No cheating.)
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

Lloyd Bentsen's old pal?

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by digger12291970

Quick who said this? (No cheating.)
"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now."

JFK's time was far, far different than the one W left us with...huge swing and a miss. Not to mention that the Cold War is over and done--even if the right seem unwilling to bury the dead.

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Lloyd Bentsen's old pal?

You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.vYou cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.vYou cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.vYou cheated.You cheated.vvvYou cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.You cheated.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

JFK's time was far, far different than the one W left us with...huge swing and a miss.

You're probably right. In JFK's time we didn't have 47% of Americans paying zero income tax. We could probably raise more revenue if we lowered the tax rate on the 53% and raised it on the 47% instead of cutting rates across the board. Good catch.