hey burly, how often do you go to church? just curious.
Dick Cheney OWN3S you!
- Thread starter BurlyShirley
- Start date
never, I was being a smartass.narlus said:
Shirley gets own3dBurlySurly said:
yeah burly that 8 percent difference in the online polls really mattered didnt it? oh well. i dont really care what wars are started i wont fight in any of them anyway. just remember when you get out of college and are jobless in whatever field you choose who you voted for. unless of course you are military in which case as long as the trigger happy redneck illiterate chicken hawk is president you will have great job security.
Even the best that the Kerry-loving BBC can do is call it a draw. I love it!fluff said:
How can you even say I'll be jobless in whatever field I choose? There are some industries definitely on the rise right now. I want to work for Haliburton someday.biggins said:
They posted excerpts from major media outlets. Nobody is declaring a winner except brainwashed partisan sources...BurlySurly said:
Heck both spin campaigns sent mass emails to encourage them to vote for their candidate as the winner before the debates even started. Its all a show and you aren't that gullible, just trying the stir the pot :nuts:
No sh1t...BurlySurly said:
i like the basic undertone of Kerry's camp rhetoric. It's beginning to be repetetive and i think effective. Edwards line to Cheney of four more years of the same i think was the most profound moment you can take away from the debate utimately. So beyond Cheney's mundane snoozing style and Edwards flamboyant pretentious demeanor, the question would be which sides message would stick to the undecided voters.
Personally i was trying to dispel all personal opinions while watching it, and tried to view it from the undecided's point of view. i think Cheney came off more trusting, but Edwards rhetoric was much more effective in sticking to my mind from his delivery. So perhaps Cheney did infact win this debate, but as far as the war i think Cheney lost. Why? Because he needed to make Edwards look vulnerable to attack and undermine his message. It never happened, and the final 2 debates are Kerry and Bush. Kerry can continue effectively attacking Bush administration policies which is the focal point and i think will be the decisive factor in getting someones vote. On one side those who are satisfied and those who are not with the current state of affairs. If you start seeing personal attacks from Bush himself, you will know the armor is definately chinked. He cannot afford two more debates like his first one.
As far as personal opinion it's well established i'm for Kerry/Edwards but just by reading the books by their cover i really wouldn't mind a Kerry/Cheney candidacy. Cheney does "his job" well, of that you can tell, of knowing his role and serving the president.*edit*or "being" the president*edit*
Personally i was trying to dispel all personal opinions while watching it, and tried to view it from the undecided's point of view. i think Cheney came off more trusting, but Edwards rhetoric was much more effective in sticking to my mind from his delivery. So perhaps Cheney did infact win this debate, but as far as the war i think Cheney lost. Why? Because he needed to make Edwards look vulnerable to attack and undermine his message. It never happened, and the final 2 debates are Kerry and Bush. Kerry can continue effectively attacking Bush administration policies which is the focal point and i think will be the decisive factor in getting someones vote. On one side those who are satisfied and those who are not with the current state of affairs. If you start seeing personal attacks from Bush himself, you will know the armor is definately chinked. He cannot afford two more debates like his first one.
As far as personal opinion it's well established i'm for Kerry/Edwards but just by reading the books by their cover i really wouldn't mind a Kerry/Cheney candidacy. Cheney does "his job" well, of that you can tell, of knowing his role and serving the president.*edit*or "being" the president*edit*
Dick Cheney before Cheney dicks you!
Everyone who pays taxes, for starters.dr. evil said:
so then we should also wage war on iran, saudi arabia, egypt, pakistan, jordan, syria, north korea, lebanon, indonesia, phillipines, and various african countries? based on the same criteria (harboring terrorists, having weapons that can do bad things, and/or having a despot/dictator as a head of state)?dr. evil said:
Well since the Bush Administration has slickly slid back to no WMD and no Iraq state sponsorship of Al Qaeda, I guess its ok to go to war to take out despot/dictators and then try to clean up the mess that follows as long as we can get no-bid contracts in place for US companiesnarlus said:
that's about where we are, ain't it?
Tenchiro, is that you?dr. evil said:
All I can say is I think it was funny how Edwards kept getting his numbers/facts wrong and had to keep being corrected by the VP, who obviously knows what the facts are.
Actually according to factcheck.org - both were wrong on many items.dwaugh said:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272
Both are OWN3D by the facts...
No, I am N8. Remember?fluff said:
Tenchiro said:
Yep... everyone saysthere is no clear winner. Except the most biased sources.syadasti said:
Cheney has been caught in too many fibs and has contradicted himself too many times for me to believe any numbers that spew from his mouth.dwaugh said:
are you talking about the 90% vs. 50% issue? it's 90% of coalition casualties that the usa has sustained. that 90% of coalition casualties may well work out to 50% of total casualties -- note that iraq was not part of our coalition to attack iraq by definition.dwaugh said:
this is why you should pay attention in algebra class, bucko
Jason Voerhees :heart: Dick Cheney
kissey kiss kiss.
hahaha
kissey kiss kiss.
hahaha
WTF?Skookum said:Jason Miller :heart: Dick Cheney
kissey kiss kiss.
Sorry i spelled the last name wrong.BurlySurly said:WTF?
ink: 
Ok, let me just say that going into that debate I knew nothing at all about either guy, just who they were. I just think that Cheney, in his first impression to me, seemed to be a lot more trustworthy, I dont know why - he just did. I guess it was just because Edwards comes across to me as a jumpy laywer, who doesnt make himself quite as clear, and just overall less trustworthy. Those were my first impressions of both guys, so that's why I said what I said.
Also, I guess I should say that I hate politics, just getting to learn them, but seem to get drawn in by them. Politics, at times, just seems to be a bunch of lies going back and fourth. I wish the facts would be used more often. What we need for a president is not Bush or Kerry, but someone completely different, fresh, not corrupted by years of politics, an tells the truth/facts.
Also, I guess I should say that I hate politics, just getting to learn them, but seem to get drawn in by them. Politics, at times, just seems to be a bunch of lies going back and fourth. I wish the facts would be used more often. What we need for a president is not Bush or Kerry, but someone completely different, fresh, not corrupted by years of politics, an tells the truth/facts.
david, why do you put any faith in your perception of cheney or edwards as being trustworthy? you admitted it yourself that you "knew nothing at all about either guy". doesn't it seem, well, WRONG to be drawn to someone just for their charisma (if you can call it that in the case of cheney 
)?
)?
Good for you! You are probably right. But always remember Dick Cheney is the Devil's toilet monkey.dwaugh said:Also, I guess I should say that I hate politics, just getting to learn them, but seem to get drawn in by them. Politics, at times, just seems to be a bunch of lies going back and fourth. I wish the facts would be used more often. What we need for a president is not Bush or Kerry, but someone completely different, fresh, not corrupted by years of politics, an tells the truth/facts.
Nevermind this whole thing, I'm just confusing myself. WE NEED A LEADER WHO TELLS THE HARD FACTS! So we dont get confused and told tweaked versions of what is really true. Stupid politics, I hate em. :angry:Toshi said:david, why do you put any faith in your perception of cheney or edwards as being trustworthy? you admitted it yourself that you "knew nothing at all about either guy". doesn't it seem, well, WRONG to be drawn to someone just for their charisma (if you can call it that in the case of cheney
I hope that by the time that I can vote, we will have some people running for office who are believeable and tell the truth, etc. Its confusing in a way, though. I've always thought this one thing: The best person to be president will never be the one who wants to be president. The ones who want to be president always have big plans that they want to do, and also, they usually have a very political background. Some people just aren't meant to have the power of the presidency. (the ones who want to be president want to have power to change the world to what they think it should be like for everyone) For some reason this just says something to me, I might not be very good at saying it here, but think about it, really, and it might make sense to you in time: The best person to be president will never be the one who wants to be president.
Ok, I dont know what I just said. Dont always trust everything I write at nighttime, sometime my mind can be a million miles away...... I think deep sometimes.
such leaders are out there. you won't find them in the leading ranks of the republicans or democrats, however.dwaugh said:
www.lp.org
www.greenparty.org
www.votenader.org
That can mean, in a way, that we'd probably be better off without both of the major parties.Toshi said:
One thing that I have been wondering is why aren't the other candidates in debates with the major leading candidates, why are they just pushed aside? If this were a fair election process, each candidate would have a debate against the rest of them, and touch on all topics at once. Instead we have three debates between the same two guys, who are both not totally believeable in what they say. I think that if my idea for debates actually happened, the election would probably be a lot different in it's conclusion.