Ooh, I'm excited about this one. Starts in 90 minutes, right? The trial lawyer vs the elderly pit bull. This may be the one to watch. Anybody else going to see this one, or are you just waiting for the Bush-Kerry debates?
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Last time around, the VP debate was much better than anything the Presidential candidates ever did.
Lieberman was great, and Cheney was so good that he actually had me thinking he would be a better candidate for Pres than Bush was. Of course, I know better now.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
um, PLAYOFFS.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Dang, I've got to do some yard work so at best I will only be able to listen to it.
I think it would be great if the V.P. started out:
"Your Honor, the Prosecution has put forth its......"
It would be a good bit o' humor.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
This should be entertaining, if nothing else. WTOP said this morning that Edwards' trail lawyer experience is part of the reason that the Bush campaign would not agree to a town hall-style debate--very very wise move.
--j_k
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
What time, EST, does it start?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
It starts at 9:00 est. In other words, it starts in 30 minutes.
[ October 05, 2004, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Ah, thank you very much vwiggin. I was having much trouble with the times BBC was giving because I forgot that GMT is skewed from the five hour time difference I usually add on for british time.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Wow. Finally a good two-sided debate. I'm much more impressed than I was last thursday.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
It's interesting to watch. Edwards charming nature and speaking ability makes him tough, while Cheney's experience and speaking ability make him tough as well. Fun to watch, much better than Bush vs Kerry.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod* I just checked in during the commercial. They both speak better than their respective presidential candidates. Of course, with Edwards I get the sense that it's style more than substance. He knows what the party line is and how to put it well. Cheney, on the other hand, sounds good but didn't answer the questions put to him while I was watching. He basically talks gibberish well--and redirects things well to typical republican party lines and scare tactics about democrats weakening us militarily.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Interesting perspective on El Salvador vs. Afghanistan, whether it's accurate or not...
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
sigh... Wish this were a PresidentialDebate. Both VicePresidential candidates seem more on top of the issues than either of the Presidential candidates.
[ October 05, 2004, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
...and the barbs start flying. These dudes are tough.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: "You probably weren't around for that, but..."
That was harsh.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
true, so far they are both doing better than Bush/Kerry
Right now I feel that Cheney has the edge, but it is still very early
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I like how Cheney stops when he's done, often before the red light even comes on. Bush should take notes.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Aaaand... Haliburton rears its head. Cheney dodges. Although I don't know that he should have gone into that tangent in a 30 second rebuttal.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
They should both be allowed to pinch-debate for Kerry/Bush.
--APostleRadio
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think Cheney is doing well, but it seems as if he, like Bush, has a limited repetoire of lines to say when any specific issue comes up.
I'm much more prepared with the Kerry/Edwards team's preparation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Heck, they should be allowed to pinch-GOVERN. Of course, you can argue that Cheney already does.
Seriously, I've been saying for over a year that, once Kucinich was out of the serious running (i.e. almost immediately), Edwards was the best candidate the Dems could put forward. He's pretty much everything that Kerry isn't, which is why I'm still so baffled by Kerry's nomination.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I'm not really impressed with edwards preperation. He is getting tossed around by the heavyweight cheney.
I'm not just saying that because I am a Republican either, I will readily admit that Kerry kicked w's butt in the first debate.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I've been watching - well, I'm listening now, since the TV's in the other room. But it does seem that Cheney is giving the stronger performance, but it's not going to be a slam-dunk, like the first debate with Bush and Kerry.
Frankly, so far it's what I expected - I felt that this would be a debate that wouldn't be characterized by uneven performances.
Cheney's tough and he has his s__t together.
Part of me wonders if it's helpful in the end that Cheney comes across as so much more competent than his boss.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Cheney is being very condescending.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
oooh, these guys are pulling no punches.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I don't think either of them are doing fabulously well. I am disappointed in Edwards. Super-good-lawyer-man fell off.
They both keep interrupting the moderator.
I am cross.
(I wish they'd quit doing personal attack things.)
Jen
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Honestly, I think the two of them really don't happen to like each other much. Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Debating the moderator?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
"Your record STINKS!"
"Speak for YOURSELF!"
*blows raspberries*
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I think Cheney is *this close* to bitch slapping Edwards. Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
What Teshi said after the mini "record debate."
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
maybe they should be sitting farther apart from each other. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
*am looking forward to seeing what Saturday Night Live does with this debate*
They did a great job with the first debate last Saturday night.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
You're right. That was by far the best sketch of the night.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Why doesn't the moderator smack these guys down for answering different questions than were asked?
I love the fact that Cheney is going against Bush on the gay marriage thing. If he were president, I might be voting for them.
Oh, and Cheney stopped before the green light even came on that time because he was done with his statement. You can do it, George.
[ October 05, 2004, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Ooo, look at them go.
Cheney is such a _slime_.
Jen
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I really think Cheney's winning here. Anyone disagree?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep .
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
(from memory)
Kerry: When I said I was against the war, I was talking to antiwar crowds. When I said I supported the war I was talking to audiences that were in favor of it. That's not flip-flopping. It's pandering. And I think Americans should know the difference.
The Washington Post helped me get this excerpt on Bush:
quote: "Saturday Night Live," which gave Al Gore a world of hurt in 2000 by lampooning his sighs during a debate, opened its new season with a skit in which a Bush impersonator lamented: "Frankly, I don't know why my opponent wants this job, because it's hard!"
"So your plan is to crush terrorism by coming in on Saturdays?" asked the character playing moderator Jim Lehrer.
The Bush character replied, with reluctance: "If that's what it takes."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I really think Cheney's winning here."
This is a tough call, because both candidates really appear to be speaking to issues -- and, consequently, whichever argument you're predisposed to find more compelling is likely to seem like the "winner." I think we need to locate an undecided voter and ask him. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I gotta agree with the people handing this to Cheney. Since I initially posted, he's kept up the heat. He's relentless. He's pretty unflappable.
Confirms my belief that Cheney's the one that's really in charge.
Edit to add: I guess in terms of "winning," I'm really thinking of that group of undecided voters and trying to put myself in that very strange world they live in. ( ) I think for people still making up their minds Cheney had the edge - and face it, those are the people who count the most.
[ October 05, 2004, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
cheney was doing really well in the beginning, but he's not doing quite as well now that they're talking about domestic stuff.
he's a good debater in any case
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I don't think it's a slam-dunk like I saw in the other direction last week. Edwards is doing a very good job, but I really feel like Cheney is staying a step ahead of him. Maybe I'll be able to be more precise about this in 20 minutes when I'm not dividing my attention.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I find it amusing the best Cheney could come up to attack Edwards's record with was lack of elected political experience (which everyone should know from the Bush campaign in the 2000 race doesn't really matter ) and absences during an election year (which is typical for every congressperon facing a contest).
Edwards's attacks on Cheney's record, on the other hand, reflected substantial problems.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
I'm not undecided, but I support Kerry very reluctantly...I disagree with a lot of his policies but he's unfortunately right about the war. It looks to me like the debate is a draw...both candidates are doing a good job, though each shows weakness from time to time. Edwards has a problem with using up all his time, but at least he does it by having something substantial to say. Cheney looks good by being succinct, but sometimes it's because he doesn't seem to have much to say.
Both of them keep looking exasperated and contemptuous...if only one of them were doing it that would look bad, but since they both are......
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You know, I think a joint debate (Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates) would be very telling. I think it would reveal some important dynamics.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Way to go, moderator.
"Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to say John Kerry. "Him", does that make you happy? John Kerry. John Kerry. sorry."
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I agree fugu13. I thinking that would not only be interesting and informative, it would also be highly amusing.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Edwards seems to be outplaying Cheney a bit, but overall this debate is pretty bad. Both candidates are ignoring the questions and focusing on twisting their opponents' record around. Both are basically misusing facts to the point where it's hard to say what's what.
The presidential debate last week was much more revealing about actual position differences.
Incidently, what's with these questiosn? Is the moderator trying to incite attacks? Asking TWO questions trying to get Cheney to call "part of the problem" (or to get Edwards to accuse Cheney of saying that)?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
If Cheney has a problem, it's that he keeps putting his hands on his face and looking down while he speaks. His main problem is that people don't consider him as forthright and scrupulous as Edwards, and his body language doesn't help with that.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
She's definitely repeated at least three of the questions. And what was that deal where she didn't know who was supposed to be answering, and then misquoted who had said what a minute earlier? Hmmpf.
Edit: Aaagh, she did it again!
[ October 05, 2004, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Zeugma ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Yeah, and she's not keeping a very tight rein on them when they start talking about things they weren't asked. I was definitely more impressed with Lehrer.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: I guess in terms of "winning," I'm really thinking of that group of undecided voters and trying to put myself in that very strange world they live in. ( ) I think for people still making up their minds Cheney had the edge - and face it, those are the people who count the most.
Actually, I'm not so sure. My initial impression was that Cheney was beating up on Edwards. But that's thinking of it in more high school terms. When I try to put myself in the shoes of undecided voters, yeah, Cheney, is taking his shots, but he's coming off like a pr*ck doing it. He's not getting the "hmm, he's right" moments, but rather, the "OMG, did you SEE what he just said?! Smackdown!" Certainly he's making dyed in the wool republicans happy, but I'm not conviced he's winning over undecided voters.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
This moderator definately dropped the ball. She should be ashamed of herself. She's been asking partisan and irrelevant questions and has made rules mistakes. This is kinda ridiculous.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Well, I'm going to say it's a tie. Edwards looks friendly and earnest, and Cheney looks tough and somewhat bored with this debating nonsense.
Obviously someone is lying about all of these different numbers that keep getting thrown around, but who you believe is lying depends on what you believed going into it.
You can, however, clearly state that the moderator LOST. Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Any debate where you pay more attention to the moderator than the debaters is a bad sign.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
As a Democrat, I have to say that I think this debate clearly went to Cheney. Was on on-topic way more than Edwards, it seemed like, and he presented his rhetoric in a much more calm fashion than Edwards, whom you could see sweating a little and getting flustered. Edwards very annoyingly was Bush-like in just sticking to one point no matter what the question--Bush and Cheney are liars!
The only positive aspect of this for Dems is that Cheney really makes Bush look bad and drives home what a poor grasp Bush seems to have on the issues.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Speaking of moderation, I thought the topic of tonight's debate was foreign policy? What the hell is up with all that weirdness in the questions? Why on earth was Edward's lack of experience made into one whole question?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Since it was the only VP debate, I think the topic was everything.
Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
quote: Why on earth was Edward's lack of experience made into one whole question?
Because Cheney didn't stay on topic. Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
Tonight's debate was intended to be on both domestic and foreign policy.
You're right about Edwards sticking to the same points no matter what the question. He did the same thing in the primaries, repeating what was basically phrases from his stump speech over and over. They're good points, but it's tiresome since there are so many other valuable points that he could be making.
And wow, did Edwards drop the ball on the question about his experience. It wasn't a very fair question to begin with, but he could have come up with something better than to talk about Kerry instead.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Cheney definitely won this one. I still can't believe it -- I mean, jesus, exactly how much further can the playing field be tilted? Edwards had four years of gross incompetence and corruption to work with -- but he won.
Probably due to Edwards' failure more than to his own success. Christ, John, let's repeat a few more keywords, huh? Gah, his points were so goddamn inane -- I could've handled that better, with any degree of preparation.
I want Paul Krugman for president.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As an addendum, I don't think Cheney won because he spouted more truth -- heh -- but because he at least appeared like he did, while Edwards was constantly falling back on the same tired old Kerry-was-in-'Nam bit. For god's sake, guy, go after the four years of miserable failure that characterizes the Bush administration. Call him on his numbers, go after the disparity in treatment between the elite and the citizenry, do something. So much to work with and so little actually said, it's ridiculous.
[ October 05, 2004, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Lalo ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Storm, you have never struck me as a democrat. Are you a dixiecrat, or a conservative democrat?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It just boggles my mind that Cheney is serving *under* Bush and not the other way around.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Edwards' closing statement was *awesome*. I thought Cheney's was ridiculously obscure. Regardless of the rest of the debate....Edwards won the end.
Plus, damn, he's cute for being 55...
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote: Edwards looks friendly and earnest, and Cheney looks tough and somewhat bored with this debating nonsense.
*nod*
That's what I'm getting at too, Poly.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Yeah, Edwards' wrapup came close to giving me chills. Very cool. Cheney came close to putting me to sleep. Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
At least Cheney is an adult. I wish that that Cheney could substitute in for Bush on these last two debates. It'll force Kerry not to play down, and give everybody a clearer picture on what these four have in store for the next four years.
Edwards was Edwards. It's a vice-presidential debate geared up to talk about vice-presidential issues. I don't know how many purely vice-presidential issues there are.
If for no other reason than Cheney seemed credible whereas Bush was just an embarrassment, I can give this debate to Cheney, but there is not one thing, not one statement, that makes me think that Cheney likes people. And there is something wrong with a politician who doesn't like people. He is comfortable talking about the economy, education in terms of the economy and health-care with respect to the economy, but this guy doesn't like people.
___
Kasie, I think he is 51.
[ October 05, 2004, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Ha. That's funny. I am very socially liberal and a fiscal moderate. Did anyone else think I was a Republican?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Yup, got to give this debate to Cheney.
I thought overall the debate was fairly even. But Edwards really hurt himself when he broke the "don't mention your boss" rule. The mod was clearly trying to nail down each VP candidate's qualifications. Edwards, instead of telling us why he should be VP, resorted to his stump speech regarding how wonderful Kerry is. That lost a lot of points in my book.
This was a very lively and entertaining debate. A lot of "GASP! I can't believe he said that" moments. This will bring even more interest to the next debate, which, as someone pointed out, might not be the best thing for Bush.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Correction:
He's damn cute for being fifty-something Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
You know where I stand...
and I give the debate to Cheney.
Edwards down right pissed me off. I thought he did horrible from the 20 minutes I saw of the Debate.
Edwards was 10 times farther from answering the question, than Cheney was, and He kept talking about how great Kerry was, which I didn't think was helpful at all.
And then when he kept talking about how great Kerry was when he was specificlly asked NOT TO, and he kept saying Me and John Kerry oh sorry We.
I thought he sucked totally for the 20 minutes I saw.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Ifill did fine. She made a woops, but I'm over it. Anytime you can make the sitting vice-president say, "Geez, Gwen, I didn't know it was that bad." You've done a good job. I like that she wasn't aggressive on the time. These men are an unlucky bullet or burger away from the presidency, let them talk as long as they like, but I did like that she wasn't taking anybody's guff. Cheney made some overly familiar reference to her, and I'm not as mature as she is, but I would have called him Richard instead of Mr. Vice-President. I can't remember the context, but she held her cool.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
She told Cheney to suck eggs when he said he needed longer than ten minutes. Heh.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I totally don't see how you can definitively call the winner of a 90 minute debate from watching 20 minutes of it. Please.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Actually, I liked Cheney's closing statement a lot more than Edwards. I really dislike "when I was a child" type of speeches. It is a tired tactic to manipulate voters and it tells me close to nothing about the candidate.
Cheney's closing statement is straightforward: Look, I'm old, I'm crusty, I have no political agendas. I'm not huggable, in fact, if you hug me I'll probably punch you out. I'm a prick, but you need pricks to fight pricks. I'm Dick Cheney and I AM the president.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Eh, I feel like that kind of attitude is what got us into this whole mess in Iraq to begin with.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Aversion to hugging? Probably. More hugs = less terrorism. Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
((((world))))
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Edwards shouldn't have spoken about Cheney's daughter. This isn't an excuse for anyone to vote against Kerry. If you are going to use this as an excuse, I don't want to know you anyway, but there was something seedy and not at all good about all of the accolades Edwards layed on Cheney's daughter.
[ October 05, 2004, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Cheney handled that well. He simply said, thanks and no comment. Classy. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, this debate didn't really accomplish much for either side I think. There was too much smoke on the battlefield, so to speak, to figure out what was true and what wasn't. Furthermore, it was fairly boring, despite all the attacks. I'm betting a lot of people lost interest.
The one thing that made me think Edwards did a bit better is that he did a really good job of refuting the whole "global test" complaints coming out of the republican camp. That was early on and it stood out as a particularly clear response.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:((((world))))
Heh... that should be on the Kerry campaign signs.... Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I liked these debates alot better than the Presidential one last Thursday.
Take this with a grain of salt, but I think Cheney looked like the veteran and Edwards looked a little "green around the ears" in an eager puppydog sort of way (like how he couldn't stop saying John Kerry's name came off a little puppy dogish).
There definately was an experience gap played up.
I felt that Cheney presented more "figures" and "records" in rebuttal to Edwards where in the past debate it was a debate about "past principles".
Of course I am biased (aren't we all?) but I give Cheney the small victory in this one. Not near the margin that Kerry won over Bush in the last one, but a small victory considering his age, looks, etc.
Just my opinion.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I liked how Edwards emphasized that Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11 Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I liked how Cheney showed how Sadaam himself directly supported terrorism (giving money to suicide bomber families in other countries) which is the sponsoring of international terrorism, and also how Zarqawi was in Afghanistan, but then moved to Iraq BEFORE the invasion occurred...
That was a bit of news I didn't know. I knew he wasn't even an Iraqi but a Syrian (or is it Jordanian? can't remember) but I didn't know he was an Afghan tranied terrorist.
It begs the question. If he is a terrorist in Iraq, and Sadaam was a terrorist, and Kerry (and Edwards confirmed tonight) promised to hunt down and kill the terrorist "wherever they may be", does that mean Kerry would have invaded Iraq as well WMD's or no?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Still...most of us agree that Cheney did a bit better...not a lot, but a bit.
Still, even that makes Bush look worse...lol...
Kwea
[ October 05, 2004, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I did find it funny that Cheney pointed out John Edwards got out of $600,000 thousand dollars in taxes through a legal loophole, considering Halliburton has been basing it's 29 littler companies on off-shore addresses.
..but Hey, if people don't care that he was CEO for the company, they ain't gonna care that he was CEO for the company.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Saddam wasn't a terrorist though, anymore than Bush is a terrorist for terrorists entering the U.S. during his watch.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I liked how Edwards claimed they were going to stop companies from outsourcing to foreign countries. Then he went and said he would make it legal for everyone to import drugs...from other countries (which sends money "out" of the country).
Now if they stop these companies from producing pills abroad, how are you going to import them for cheaper cost?
[ October 05, 2004, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Saddam wasn't a terrorist though, anymore than Bush is a terrorist for terrorists entering the U.S. during his watch.
Actually, Sadaam paid cash money to the families of suicide bombers. You know, the ones that get on buses and blow up only civillians.
That makes him a terrorist. That he funded it in another country makes him an international terrorist.
Also, Cheney alluded to Sadaam actually intervening personally to oversee the release from prison of Zarqawi associates. Why would he do that? I had never heard of that either.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
CStroman, I don't know how you are going to get around the fact that Cheney doesn't like people.
quote:Edwards: The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.
He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.
That's America, folks. This is about our character.
[ October 05, 2004, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Yes, and U.S. officials paid money to Al Qaeda to commit terrorism against the Soviet Union... are they terrorists too?
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I don't like people either, I guess I should never run for V.P.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
nope.
It's acceptable. Be an economist or an accountant or a programmer, but you don't get to be VP.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Darn.
Can I still be a college student? I think we are required to dislike people in some instances.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Um, isn't Allawi sort of a terrorist too? I read somewhere that he recently cut off a man's hand and executed several insurgents himself by shooting them in the head.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Well, one thing that will make a lot of the news stories to know is the major "big lie" of the evening. On MSNBC, they played Cheney's statement tonight in which he denied ever saying Iraq had a role in 9/11. They then pulled up a tape of an appearance by him from "Meet the Press" about a year ago in which DID say that.
I'll probably be able to get the quotes tomorrow morning - I'm sure they'll be on the MSNBC site.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saddam wasn't a terrorist though, anymore than Bush is a terrorist for terrorists entering the U.S. during his watch. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Sadaam paid cash money to the families of suicide bombers. You know, the ones that get on buses and blow up only civillians.
So we arrested Saddam.
...and his country is now kinda like your car if you get busted in the U.S., IMPOUNDED.
We've Impounded Iraq.
Iraq is just an expensive car, no?.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:isn't Allawi sort of a terrorist too?
Allawi just has that Sharon/Cheney thing going. I'm not saying that they are interchangeable, but they are kind of interchangeable. Contrast them with Karzai in Afghanistan.
[ October 06, 2004, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Yes, and U.S. officials paid money to Al Qaeda to commit terrorism against the Soviet Union... are they terrorists too?
Actually NO, we did not pay Al Qaida any money to commit terrorism against the Soviet Union. We did pay and train the Afghan Mujahideen (which was before Al Qaida existed) to attack the Army of the Soviet Union that had invaded Afghanistan.
HUGE difference. Huge.
Now if you said we paid the Muhahideen to infiltrate the Soviet Union and blow up a school, you would be correct. But we did no such thing.
Huge difference in backing one army against another vs. backing one army against unarmed civillians.
[ October 06, 2004, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by HonoreDB (Member # 1214) on :
CStroman, we fund terrorists too. I agree that Saddam was a terrorist financier though, at least in the past, and needed to be taken down somehow. Voting to give the President authorization to go to war, if necessary, as the Senators John did, was a necessary first step. Pouring money, diplomacy, and troops into Iraq is now the necessary third step. But the second step was totally botched. It was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
It's a typical Bush Admin tactic to frame conditional support for them as unconditional support. That's why they say the Senators flipflopped--because saying yes to one thing means they can never say no to anything. Voting for a Democratic Iraq spending bill means they can't vote against the Republican Iraq spending bill, even in symbolic protest. The criticisms of Republicans who support his candidacy are irrelevant. When polls showed America favored going to war if we got U.N. support, Bush said that meant we favored war, and the rest didn't matter.
Oh, and Cheney lied when he said he'd never met Edwards.
This lie came as part of a specious attack on Edwards for his attendance record in the Senate, which I'm sure is totally due to his being out campaigning and perfectly excusable.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Well, one thing that will make a lot of the news stories to know is the major "big lie" of the evening. On MSNBC, they played Cheney's statement tonight in which he denied ever saying Iraq had a role in 9/11. They then pulled up a tape of an appearance by him from "Meet the Press" about a year ago in which DID say that.
Indeed. The real question is, will the Kerry campaign start a "flip-flopper" argument against Cheney and Bush?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
They already have in this debate.
quote: But the second step was totally botched. It was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
That is your opinion. Mine is that it was the perfect time and at the perfect place.
If not, choose another war against another Middle East country that would have been better to go in and set up a democracy of change?
Again, just my opinion, but there is a time for war and Iraq/Sadaam met all the qualifications in my book both short term and long term.
But there is a SERIOUS flaw, IMHO to someone who votes FOR the war, then opposes the funding of it based on "political party politics". Especially when soldiers lives are at stake.
That's akin, to me, of inviting a stranger in, and then yanking the rug out from under him.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
As to the Cheney/Edwards meeting.
Here's a thought.
Perhaps they never met but were at the same meeting and just as John Kerry and Jane Fonda were at and spoke at the same rally, etc, but supposedly never "met".
I believe the same arguement applies to both cases.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Must I point out, yet again, that Bush cut benefits to soldiers. That is thousands times worse! You just dont' do that during a war! Furthermore, how logical is it to cut taxes for people who do not need tax cuts during a war?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Must I point out, yet again, that Bush cut benefits to soldiers. That is thousands times worse! You just dont' do that during a war!
I may have to disagree with that on the grounds that giving the troops what is need to survive and fight is more important than leaving them literally "stuck in the sand" but making sure their checks get home.
I think both stink btw. But don't vote for them to go to war, then stick them out there naked.
Again, just my opinion.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Well, g'night all and On to Friday!
Here's hoping that Bush learns to debate and get a little offensive strategy before the next one. (doubtful, but I'm hopeful)
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But there is a SERIOUS flaw, IMHO to someone who votes FOR the war, then opposes the funding of it based on "political party politics".
Gotta be my single most hated "fact" of this whole campaign.
He opposed the funding of it without accountability. He voted for a version of the same bill that included accountability and an explanation of where at least some of the money was coming from. His mistake was explaining it in such a way that gave the opposing team sound bites forever.
I have serious concerns about Kerry as a president, but that stupid campaign mud pie was never one of them.
[ October 06, 2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
CS, the funny thing is that Kerry voted FOR a much better bill before that, and Bush and Co shot it down. Kerry has also tried to increase their pay and benifits, and has fought strongly AGAINST the closing of several MA VA Hospitals...that Bush ordered closed anyways.
He wanted to give the soldiers fullbody armor, an voted against the partial body armor (that has been blamed for many of the casualties)that Bush gave them in place, because it would cost less.
He also didn't think the companies that got the contracts should ahve,because he didn't think they would be cost effective, adn had no faith in their ability to do the job they were hired for...and he has been proven right many times over.
APC's without armor, soldiers wearing ineffective body armor, gas prices highly inflated shipped to the military...or not shipped to them, just billed to them...lol...
Which candidate doesn't support the troops?
Kwea
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
One opportunity that Cheney missed was when Edwards kept emphasizing that Iraq had no connection to the 9/11 attack. Cheney should have countered that Nazi Germany had no connection to the Pearl Harbor attack either, but from the beginning, President Roosevelt rightly made fighting Germany the priority.
It was devasting when Cheney referred to all the times Edwards was absent from the senate, and how as president of the senate who presides over the senate, Cheney had never met Edwards until this debate. Talk about taking Edwards out for a whipping behind the woodshed!
The reason why Edwards brought up Cheney's daughter was because he hoped to put Cheney on the spot because Cheney has a different view than the president on the issue of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Cheney, of course, is obligated to support the president's policy. Cheney handled that with class, thanking Edwards for his nice comments about his family, then saying he had no more to say. I agree that it was a cheap, sleazy tactic by Edwards.
Cheney provided some devastating sound bites along with solid arguments, like when he described the circumstances of the vote by Kerry and Edwards against the supplemental appropriation for funds to support the troops in Iraq, that it was right after Howard Dean had moved up in the polls after declaring himself against the war, then Cheney concluded, "If you cannot stand up to Howard Dean, then how can you stand up to Al Qaeda?" That one blew away both Kerry and Edwards!
[ October 06, 2004, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: "If you cannot stand up to Howard Dean, then how can you stand up to Al Qaeda?" That one blew away both Kerry and Edwards!
I'' bet anyone a $100 that Bush (being the lousy speaker he is) uses that on the next foreign policy debate (if it comes up again).
Posted by HonoreDB (Member # 1214) on :
There. Is. No. Contradiction.
Voted for the authorization. Disapproved of how the authorization was used. Voted for a broad spending bill to support the troops. Voted in protest against one they didn't like with a similar purpose.
Stop it, Bush and Bushies! It's not a contradiction, it's not even fuzzy.
And Ron, Cheney's "zinger" will hopefully backfire, as it's clear that Edwards' voting record is perfectly normal for a Prez and VP candidate. He showed up when he needed to, but he was out campaigning. Bush didn't spend much time in the Governor's mansion once his first campaign started. This, combined with the fact that they did at least onceattend the same event in their capacities as President and Member of the Senate, rendering Cheney's statement inaccurate...Cheney opened his speech [at the congressional event] by greeting Edwards.
Will you please stop repeating these talking points designed solely for the gullible and/or unengaged?
[ October 06, 2004, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: HonoreDB ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
There's one thing that keeps bothering me about something Edwards said last night. While talking about gay marriages he stated, twice, that he and Kerry believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman. They, however, aren’t against partnerships or unions (I thinks those were the words) between gays and lesbians who have been in a long term relationship and who are committed to each other.
Where do you draw the line there? Who's to say how committed one is? Would you ask a gay couple how many years they'd been involved "seriously"? There are heterosexual couples today who get married at the drop of a hat, just to prove something, or for lack of better judgment. There are those who “know it was meant to be” and marry on that assumption within days, weeks or months. Celebrities constantly make a joke out of the sanctity of marriage.
Where do you draw the line? If he's working the gay/lesbian voters, which it's obvious he is, why do you think he keeps adding in the “who are in a long term relationship and who are committed to each other”?
quote:Will you please stop repeating these talking points designed solely for the gullible and/or unengaged?
I'm gullible and confused. Sorry!
[ October 06, 2004, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Tammy ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Tammy, I think you'd draw the line at the point where the two partners would be willing to draw up a contract, which is basically what a civil union (and secular marriage is).
But on the debates, I came away thinking Cheney was more polished and prepared... but it was Edward's message that stuck with me today.
And the overall theme of his message was: Look at where we are and what our country has done over the last four years! Do you want this to continue? Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Do you really feel that it is getting better? Do you even trust these folks anymore?
Cheney is a smart fellow, and he threw his barbs quite well. Edwards, honestly got stung a few times and missed his chance to sting back each time.
I will say that Cheney showed much more class than I thought he was capable of when Edwards brought up the VP's daughter. You could almost see the human being under the rather thick shell that Cheney lives in.
Basically, Edwards was strongest in the first half of the debate, Cheney had the upper hand for most of the last half, and Edwards' closing remarks were the better.
A very close debate, but I feel that its implications aren't going to be good for Bush. Cheney was strong enough to stop the fall in the polls after Bush's last performance and maybe repair it a bit. But I'm afraid folks are now going to judge Bush vs. Cheney more than Bush vs. Kerry.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
People have always known that Cheney is more experienced, a better speaker, and perhaps brighter than Bush. Why do you think there was so much talk from the Republicans in 2000 about it being ok to vote for Bush because he had surrounded himself with smart people?
Cheney has somehow been made out to be this evil psuedo-human being over the last few years. Some of it seems to come from his ties to Halliburton, some of it seems to come from his gruff behavior. I am not entirely sure, however, that it is fair to make the jump to "he doesn't like people" as some folks in this thread have done.
I would guess Cheney likes people just fine, but his exterior doesn't really show it. If you are a tough and strong and "keep it to yourself" kinda guy, you might not come off as being a loving and caring person on tv. But when you see him talk about his family, some of that starts to come through. I think it just takes a really strong emotion for anything to make it from Cheney's brain to his face in a way we could read it.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
BTW, I highly recommend watching the debates on C-Span. They did a split screen last night throughout the debate that let you see both men throughout the event.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
One of the hypocritical things that bugs me from the B/C camp is they harp on Edwards 'lack of Washington experience', which to them makes Edwards unqualified for the VP slot. Lets look back though. Bush had zero Washington experience before becoming PRESIDENT.
[ October 06, 2004, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: BookWyrm ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Bush had zero Washington experience before becoming PRESIDENT.
I seem to remember a previous Bush as a president.....
Also I don't think it is so much his lack of Washington politics, but his lack of politics in general. He's a first term senator and not even a full term, and a civil lawyer before that.
Let's say Kerry gets elected and should anything happen to him, you get Edwards as your new commander in chief. I don't think he is anywhere near qualified to run the country (nor do I Kerry either).
His political experience is nil.
Just my opinion.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Had Edwards not been tied to Kerry, his best response to a lack of political experience would have been:
Yes, I haven't spent the last thirty years in Washington. I see that as a plus. What grasp of reality does a career politician have?
But then they could just point to Kerry's long political career.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Nothing like debating and rebutting yourself, eh Sop?
Are you winning or losing? Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's interesting, too, Sopwith, that Republicans often complain about 'career politicians' like Al Gore and the like who don't have any experience in the 'real' world. Which is it, is a long political career good or bad?
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:But there is a SERIOUS flaw, IMHO to someone who votes FOR the war, then opposes the funding of it based on "political party politics". Especially when soldiers lives are at stake.
I read it more like this: It is like giving authority for people to carry and conceal weapons (like here in Ohio). The thought of this is to allow a citizen to arm themselves and protect themselves from imminent harm. If that now-armed person decides that the real threat (the ones breaking into your house, let's say) needs to be put aside so you can go shoot up that neighbor down the street who has been giving you mean looks...that certainly is giving authority and then regretting how that authority is used. I think that is how Kerry is feeling right now.
I would think that even supporters of concealed weapons for everyone would be upset of those gun owners abused that priviledge and that responsibility.
Same could be said when my parents gave me the keys to the car oh so long ago. Was it flip flopping when they wanted them back after my crushing of mailboxes in the neighborhood?
fil
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
It depends on if there were "conditions" laid out in advance that listed that as a repurcussion of abusing that priviledge.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Fox News has up on their website an AP "Factcheck" of the debate, that found miscues on both sides. Here is the link: Fact Check on VP debate
Cheney did in fact meet Edwards on three previous occasions, one time sitting down next to him at a prayer breakfast. Of course, Cheney's point was that Edwards hardly ever showed up in the senate over the past several years (even before Edwards was out campaigning for this year's election), and Edwards did not dispute Cheney's claim during the debate.
As for Edwards' claim that Bush sent troops into Iraq in the first place without body armor, that is untrue:
quote:Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said 40,000 troops did not have the brand new, improved armor but, "every soldier and Marine on the ground over had body armor."
The supplemental $87 billion appropriations bill that Kerry and Edwards voted against included funds to update the body armor with the "new, improved armor."
Edwards also misconstrued facts when he claimed that the Bush administration "lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay" (of the troops in Iraq. In actual fact:
quote:When the government faced prospects that increased allowances for the troops would expire as stipulated by Congress, the Pentagon said it would make up any shortfall through incentive pay or similar means.
And on Edwards' and the Democrats' continual harping on the awarding of contracts (without any competitive bids) for reconstruction in Iraq to Haliburton, a company Cheney used to be CEO of, as if this were some kind of favoritism or impropriety that hangs like an albatross around Cheney's neck, that is completely groundless:
quote:But congressional auditors recently reviewed those contracts [to Haliburton] and concluded U.S. officials met legal guidelines in awarding the business without competition — in part because Halliburton was the only company capable of doing some of the work.
Cheney and the Republicans were also questioned by the Fact Check on their claim of how many times Kerry voted for raising taxes:
quote:Cheney accused Kerry of voting for taxes 98 times. That's down from the 350 times wrongly claimed by Republicans, but it's still a stretch. Those 98 votes include times when Kerry voted for lower taxes — but not as low as Republicans wanted. And times when many procedural votes were cast on a single tax increase or package.
Also challenged was another of the Democrats' favorite criticisms of the Bush administration over "out-sourcing of jobs."
quote:The Council of Economic Advisers said job outsourcing is part of a healthy dynamic in which free trade in return benefits Americans. And Chao said last month that the concerns about job losses ignore that foreign-owned companies are creating many jobs in the United States at the same time.
Chao said employers have eliminated about 300,000 jobs in the United States in favor of cheaper labor elsewhere, but about 9 million Americans currently work for U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Thanks for the post.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
This was published a few months back, but it's still pretty timely
quote:Sneak Preview! The Cheney-Edwards Debate By ANDY BOROWITZ
Published: July 11, 2004 New York Times
PLANNING for the 2004 vice presidential debate is already under way. In an attempt to level the playing field, Senator John Edwards's image will be digitally altered to make him 40 percent less "hot looking," and Vice President Dick Cheney will be on a five-second delay. Finally, each man has submitted a wish list of questions to ask the other during the high-stakes face-off.
QUESTIONS FOR DICK CHENEY
1. Former Senator Alfonse D'Amato has suggested President Bush dump you from the ticket. What's your response to him, in two words?
2. If Halliburton and the Carlyle Group both invited you to the movies on the same night, who would you go with?
3. Over the past four years, how many days would you say you spent above ground?
4. Describe in detail your favorite high-impact aerobics routine.
5. Didn't "Fahrenheit 9/11" totally rock?
6. Exactly when did you remove Kenneth Lay from your online buddy list?
7. If there really are no plans to reinstitute the draft, why did you just request a sixth deferment?
8. Is it true that you wept during Darth Vader's death scene?
9. If anything happened to you while serving a second term, would George Bush be fit to be president?
10. Here's something I've always wondered: Does the other side of your mouth work?
QUESTIONS FOR JOHN EDWARDS
1. Who made the final out in the 1954 World Series?
2. What do you have that Dick Gephardt doesn't have, besides eyebrows?
3. Agree/disagree with the following statement: "Litigators are opportunistic leeches who are sucking the lifeblood from our nation's economy."
4. On average, how many times a day do you check yourself out in shiny surfaces?
5. Is it true that your son, Jack, said of Senator Kerry, "Daddy, please don't make me play with that weird old guy anymore"?
6. On the night Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon, which pajamas were you wearing, the ones with the cowboys or the ones with the ducks?
7. What's your secret to remaining fully conscious when Senator Kerry is speaking?
8. What's Malibu Barbie really like?
9. If, as you say, there are two Americas, which one is your vacation home in?
10. Do you have any idea how late it is? This is a school night.
[ October 06, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: plaid ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: Cheney has somehow been made out to be this evil psuedo-human being over the last few years. Some of it seems to come from his ties to Halliburton, some of it seems to come from his gruff behavior. I am not entirely sure, however, that it is fair to make the jump to "he doesn't like people" as some folks in this thread have done.
I would guess Cheney likes people just fine, but his exterior doesn't really show it. If you are a tough and strong and "keep it to yourself" kinda guy, you might not come off as being a loving and caring person on tv. But when you see him talk about his family, some of that starts to come through. I think it just takes a really strong emotion for anything to make it from Cheney's brain to his face in a way we could read it.
Prolix,
You can make all the excuses you want, but not only did Cheney give an incredibly limited amount of money to charity.
Edwards was correct in all of his statements last night.
quote:Edwards: The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.
He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.
You don't get this record without being unsavory. His saving grace for American politics is that he is harder on the terrorists than his is on his fellow Americans. You can make all of the excuses you want, but you don't get to be a nice guy and vote the way he voted and give the way he gave.
If this is a debate about character and humanity, Cheney would get laughed off of the stage. But since it's about policy and terrorists, he is one of the more qualified people in the nation.
[ October 06, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Irami, the AP Fact Check article shows you are incorrect in your claim that Edwards was correct in all his statements last night. He was in fact wrong on many of his most important points.
Plaid, I have to admit, number nine of questions for Cheney cracked me up.
[ October 06, 2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
factcheck.org's analysis of the debate. The link does work, but it is sporadic.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Irami,
Out of all those votes you just listed, the only one I care about is the plastic guns. He was wrong on that one.
I would have voted against head start as well. I don't care one way or the other about Martin Luther King day, or president's day, or flag day, or arbor day....you get the picture.
Meals on wheels is a good thing. I would vote for that I suppose. As for Nelson Mandela, I don't think one more person asking for his release was really what was needed.
I guess my point is that a person's ability to like other humans is not neccessarily pointed out by how many times they voted against "humanitarian" programs. Besides that, I would be interested to see how many such programs he voted for. If you can show me that, I would be more impressed. But if he has voted for 100 such programs and against these half dozen, I'm not sure you can judge his character based on that.
If he has voted against 100 humanitarian proposals and for 6, you might be able to persuade me otherwise.
I sound like I am assigning you homework or something just to change my mind. lol.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
(thanks, Storm Saxon) Here is FactCheck.org's summary of the debate:
quote:Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.
Edwards falsely claimed the administration "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs.
Unfortunately for him, Cheney mistakenly sent people to www.factcheck.com to support his case.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Ouch! George Soro's site? That's the Democratic equivalent of the SBVs.
Way ouch.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Much more objective and accurate is the Fact Check article run by Associated Press, which various news oraganizations ran--such as Fox News. I did quote the main points from that article in my post of 12:27pm today.
Here again is the statement that article gives about the bogus Haliburton issue Democrats have been harping on groundlessly:
quote:But congressional auditors recently reviewed those contracts [to Haliburton] and concluded U.S. officials met legal guidelines in awarding the business without competition — in part because Halliburton was the only company capable of doing some of the work.
[ October 06, 2004, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Why is your link 'more objective and accurate'? Is it possible both links are 'objective and accurate', but focus on different things?
I see nothing wrong with either article, since both candidates appear to me to get about equal time in both, though the articles sometimes focus on different parts of the debate, or focus on the same part of the debate and reach different conclusions.
[ October 06, 2004, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Because it's Fox News, Storm Saxon. "Fair and Balanced" and all that.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Interestingly enough, if you go to factcheck.com, and then replace com with org on the address bar (failing to notice that the bar now says georgesoros.com), it directs you to moveon.org.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I guess my point is that a person's ability to like other humans is not neccessarily pointed out by how many times they voted against "humanitarian" programs. Besides that, I would be interested to see how many such programs he voted for. If you can show me that, I would be more impressed. But if he has voted for 100 such programs and against these half dozen, I'm not sure you can judge his character based on that.
This was Edwards' point though. He was throwing the same reasoning Cheney was using right back at him, and in doing so illustrating that you can't take votes out of context and prove anything with them. That was precisely what Cheney had been doing all night - and throughout the campaign: taking Kerry's votes out of context.
With a long enough record, you can make ANY politician look bad by doing this selectively.
I though this was one of the strongest, though subtle, points made by Edwards.
[ October 06, 2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Actually NO, we did not pay Al Qaida any money to commit terrorism against the Soviet Union. We did pay and train the Afghan Mujahideen (which was before Al Qaida existed) to attack the Army of the Soviet Union that had invaded Afghanistan.
HUGE difference. Huge.
Why is it huge? All that changed was the name, since the roster of the Mujahadeen made up the roster of Al Qaeda. Sure, Sudanese and Saudi Arabian forces bolstered the numbers, since bin Laden was chased first out of Saudi Arabia and then out of Sudan, but what else do you call it when forces we trained and funded become part of a terrorist group? Not only that, but are you saying that the Mujahadeen weren't terrorists? Sure they were terrorizing the "evil communists," but they were terrorizing nonetheless.
Were the Taliban terrorists? We sure supported them, sending millions of dollars their way in the years preceding 9/11. Is that a huge difference? If so, why?
How about the US WMD arms supplied to Iraq in the early 80s to attack Ayatollah Khomeini? Does that count, since Hussein wound up on our list in the War on Terror anyway? Or are you saying that Hussein wasn't a terrorist when he was the enemy of our enemy?
What about the CIA support of the terrorism all over South and Central America (most notably Guatemala)? Or do "death squads" not count when the support is given through a private operations mechanism and kept out of common political public record?
quote:Huge difference in backing one army against another vs. backing one army against unarmed civillians.
Riiiiiiiight.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Exactly my point tres. I can't stand it when either side does it, it just so happens that they do it alot.
But I am curious about Cheney's full record on things like that now. I should give it as an assignment to Tom and tell him I will vote for Kerry if he can show me that Cheney truly doesn't like people.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
But the redirect should be obvious pretty quickly to anyone who looked, as the address changes -- and, FWIW, Soros has a (teeny, IMHO) disclaimer in the upper left column.
quote:In answering a question about his involvement with Halliburton, Cheney meant to direct people to FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan site run by the University of Pennsylvania. He urged people watching the debate to go to the site for facts countering Edwards' statements about the corporation Cheney used to run.
But Cheney cited FactCheck.com, a for-profit advertising site based in the Cayman Islands.
The company decided to redirect traffic to the Soros site after it became inundated with hits about 100 a second after the debate, John Berryhill, a Philadelphia lawyer for FactCheck.com, said Wednesday.
"This was to relieve stress on the service and to express a political point of view," said Berryhill, who spoke with the site's administrators shortly after the debate ended.
They picked Soros not only for his political views, Berryhill said, but because the billionaire could afford the costly deluge of hits the site would receive in the wake of the debate. Plus, the site administrators didn't want to point surfers to a candidate's site that was asking for money.
Web site operators typically pay fees to the companies that host their sites. The more hits a site receives, the more its operator pays.
Soros was not advised of the switch and did not know it had taken place until Wednesday, said a spokesman, Jeremy Ben-Ami.
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
Noooo, I missed the debate, I completely forgot. Is there anywhere I can watch it online? Ugh I was looking forward to this one so much, too.
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
WTOP said this morning that Edwards' trail lawyer experience is part of the reason that the Bush campaign would not agree to a town hall-style debate--very very wise move.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
That was harsh.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)