It started with this pic from facebook user "A":
B: When did that happen? I thought he shot a guy in the butt in a hunting accident...
A: nope, it was in the face... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident#Whittington_injury
B: Umm... yeah... Not really though. It was a shot that had over 200 small (tiny) pellets, and some went on his face, neck and torso. When you say someone shot someone else in the face, that has a very, very different connotation.
C: Umm, cause the latter was an accident and Biden just came off as a condescending douchebag? (Liked by B)
D: I know that my face, when being shot, is often much angrier when it doesn't come from tiny pellets. It's totally different. (Person D is cool)
Me: do you guys work for Dick Cheney or something?
C: I'm just saying I think it's kind of silly to compare an accident with being mean on purpose. That's it. (again, B likes this)
Me again: Look, I didn't see any of the vice presidential debate... but this is REALLY apples to oranges. You're saying he was "mean" in a debate? Does that mean he was insulting or something? If so, I imagine it's the debate moderators job to cut that off. Additionally, the man that was shot in the face with buckshot, released a public satement soon after the event APOLOGIZING to Cheney for what happened... despite the fact that this man did nothing wrong besides go hunting with Dick Cheney. There's absolutely no question that this is a hilarious situation, ripe for national lampoonery.
B: In terms of the debate many people commented on how rude Biden was. Check out any clips. He smirked and chuckled 81 (or close to that) times in an 88 minute debate. Yes, this can seem like a cheap chuckle but I just found it very misleading.
Me again again: Most likely it was an automatic stalling tactic done to give him a moment to think about what to say, people do it all the time. Plus, hey, I never said he was a good vice president, whatever that means.
B: Correction: Bidden interrupted Paul Ryan 80 times. That's not a debate it's just rude.
B: And laughed while throwing up his hands and pointing throughout the debate.
Me: all of those things are perfectly natural responses to Paul Ryan.
E: Of course its a perfectly reasonable response because Ryan supports China's one child policy which includes sterylizing women and murdering "illegitimate" children. Oh wait that's actually Biden I'm thinking about; “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family.” (Joe Biden August 2011)
D (and this is the part where I was like, "oh, yeah, okay, we seem to be on the same side, therefore he's cool): It's what I, and every single one of my friends, was doing when Ryan spoke. It was enormously heartening to see Biden having the same reactions we were.
He wasn't trying to win swing voters, in my opinion. His was trying to re-energize the base. And it worked. I'm super energized.
Also, Politifact already called that a lie. Biden never endorsed forced abortions. http://www.politifact.com/
And, I may suggest looking further into claims that originate from the right. They've turned lying into an extreme sport this past election. And I'm not saying that my side doesn't do it either... But, I'd hope you apply the same rigor to investigating claims that originate from conservatives as I do from liberals. (for the sake of solidarity, I did "like" this comment)
D: Also... The picture was a joke. An appeal to humor. (again, I liked this. Why WERE we talking about a quick meme Wonka pic again?)
E: For those in doubt here is a video of Joe Biden's remark where he states that he "fully understand[s]" and he doesn't "second guess" China's one-child policy.
E: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogcvQ8fjIFc (it's short, so feel free to click and watch)
E: As for his attitude and the way he acted in the debate, one political observer who has critiqued debates over more than 30 years called it the rudest debate he has ever seen. Biden came across are arrogant and disrespectful to anyone who doesn't agree with him. He interrupted a total of 80 times throughout the debate. I believe that America can have an open and serious debate on the issues, and Biden did not want to be a part of such a debate.
Me in response: Listen, without seeing anymore of that speech (a 36 second clip is HIGHLY suspect), but without seeing anymore of that speech, what I heard just now? That was someone saying he understood why China has the policies that it has. And I understand WHY they have their policies too. Understanding is not the same as approval. The use of the phrase "I'm not second guessing (those policies)" is unfortunate, in that it can certainly sound, especially within the confines of a 36 second clip mind you, like he agrees with those policies, instead of what he probably meant in that he wasn't going to go into China and give a speech denouncing China. Everyone is scared of China! I'm scared of China! I don't fault Joe Biden for being scared of China, especially when he has to try to be careful with everything he says, since what he says can actually have an impact on the world (uh, maybe. Vice president after all). Now I'm starting to wonder about who said this was the rudest debate in 30 years, who counted these physical tics of disdain, and most especially I wonder what it was Ryan was saying (or, fine, attempting to say) that got these remarks. If the answers to those questions are Fox news, Fox news, and some good ol' objectivist/murkily described call to 50's era Americana, then I'm out!
Me addressing what is I think the ACTUAL concern (finally): Plus, not to say it's okay for Biden to be a poor debater, but the art of the debate on these higher levels has disappeared, because of the "race to the bottom" effect of the loudest, most commonly heard voice being declared "the winner". The fact that Biden is attempting to co-opt that strategy, while not laudable, is, again, understandable.
***
Okay, wait, there's just now a little bit more.
E: You can put that 36 second clip into any context you want the Vice President of US stated he understands and doesn't second guess China's one child policy. Either he's incompetent or he really does believe their policy is defensible. If you are really concerned about the context of a conversation, than maybe you should take the time to watch a debate before making a statement that such behavour is acceptable, without an understanding of the context. (This will most likely be my last comment on this post.)
Me: I have never said such behaviour was acceptable. I said it was understandable.
E: You wrote " all of those things are perfectly natural responses to Paul Ryan."
Me: that was a joke man
E: ah
Politics are scary, my friend. I think the only people I have ever talked about politics with are Mike from YAMA, Matt V, and Jordan. Mike and Matt since it's within their interests and intended career paths; and thus I can learn a lot from them.
ReplyDeleteBeing a moderate/centrist makes these sort of things hard to read/watch I'll tell ya what. I mean, I really wish the far right could realize how... silly Fox News type opinions and thoughts are. And I really wish the far left would realize how to better sway us middle people. But the thing is, America is different. It's not far left or far right, it's right, and slightly left-right. I can't believe how... polarizing it can become. It honestly makes me sad and scared.
It seems like everyone in your example (aside from you and to a large extent "E" were really hyper defensive. I mean, look, I can argue the main "point" that guy said in a polite and less confrontational way while still encouraging discussion:
"I found the fact that Joe Biden was constantly laughing a showing of a poor character. Although he clearly disagreed with Ryan's points, he could have had the poise and restraint to refute them in a manner appropriate for a sub-leadership debate."
Then, someone could reply... (like you did)
"Unfortunately, the political culture these days is set up in such a way that this sort of behaviour, while unprofessional is common, and a part of "the game." Is it bad? Sure, but in some ways he felt he had to do it."
and then...
"If he felt he needed to do it, why did not Paul Ryan?"
thus...
"That's a good question, perhaps he was trying to appeal to the people he knew wouldn't take kindly to Biden's laughter and attitude. In that way, he actually probably gained a few supporters."
And so on....
It's still a discussion with two people on different sides. Things don't have to explode into a scary "Oh, so you're one of THOSE brainwashed people..." (either side)
Oh well, just wanted to type up a little something to let you know I read it. Good luck with your quota!
Thanks Cool Geoff- the conversation went on a bunch longer, so I may just copy paste the rest... we'll see how desperate I am for quota. It's getting down to the wire, ain't it?
ReplyDeleteI'm not too worried though, no job at the moment, so I can focus on this to catch up. Two a day should set things right.