Hahahha!
Edwards has nothing. Nothing at all. This is geat!
Edwards has nothing. Nothing at all. This is geat!
Dick Cheney OWN3S you!
- Thread starter BurlyShirley
- Start date
OH! That Howard Dean line was GOOD!
Answer a question Edwards just ONE!
Screw Bush, I want Cheney for president.
Screw Bush, I want Cheney for president.
He is like a parrot, dude. Although in his dry repetition of the party line, his is not coming off as doltish as Bush did.
This has been a much better debate so far than when Kerry handed Bush his ass last Thursday. At least they're each getting into the issues instead of spewing (as much) rhetoric. I think Cheney dominated Edwards on foreign affairs issues while Edwards has argued more effectively in the domestic arena IMO. I sort of expected that.
Cheany did a great job, you have to give credit where credit is due. Edwards sounds extrememly anxious. Wanted to watch this on television but didn't get the chance. Did he look anxious? Can he answer a question?
Lots of rhetoric used on both sides, why would Edwards come with stats that have been refuted and keep driving them? 200 billion in Iraq? Cheany didn't mention (that I heard) 75% of Al-Queada caught for a reason, why didn't Edwards do the same?
Edwards should have handed Cheany his ass on domestic issues such as jobs, I don't feel he did an adequet job.
Lots of rhetoric used on both sides, why would Edwards come with stats that have been refuted and keep driving them? 200 billion in Iraq? Cheany didn't mention (that I heard) 75% of Al-Queada caught for a reason, why didn't Edwards do the same?
Edwards should have handed Cheany his ass on domestic issues such as jobs, I don't feel he did an adequet job.
That's the same thing I was saying four years ago. Edwards had nothing for Cheney, who was able to shoot down all of Edwards' distortions and general bull****. The man is good at what he does. You may not agree with him on policy issues, but you can't really argue that the guy is not sharp and knowledgable.BurlySurly said:
I liked the way Cheney would stare him down when Edwards was talking........looked like a grandpa staring down his grandson being out of line.
yes.MikeD said:
A tie, Cheney came off dry and bland. Edwards came off cocky and sly. But beyond their presentation Cheney was more focused and on topic in terms of the issues, Edwards seemed to blather and repeat a tad. He looked dumb when he broke the rules of the questioning, but held his own and stood up to Cheney during a majority of debate. Cheney did not suceed in making Edwards appear the upstart incapable of holding office which was his mission.
i was intrigued at Cheneys response or lack therof during the questioning of gay marriage rights and his relationship with his daughter. I'm trying to figure out if he was upset and being *edit*FACETIOUS*edit* SORRY TOSHI to Edwards when he thanked him then declined to speak further on the issue, when in fact it initially seemed to me he was indeed stuck in a conflict and couldn't effectively speak his real thoughts on the issue.
I think Cheney's personal views differ from Bush's and, since I think he is actaully a man of integrity, he chose to simply keep his opinion to himself in deferrence to Bush.
Odd that I totally disagree with almost everything he stands for and yet I have great respect for him as a man of integrity and intellect. Bush, on the otherhand, reminds me of N8 - pretty much vacant but able to memorize and spew whatever his handlers have approved. Or, in the case of NNate - whatever he can copy and paste...
Edwards... engh. I have no opinion of him at all.
Odd that I totally disagree with almost everything he stands for and yet I have great respect for him as a man of integrity and intellect. Bush, on the otherhand, reminds me of N8 - pretty much vacant but able to memorize and spew whatever his handlers have approved. Or, in the case of NNate - whatever he can copy and paste...
Edwards... engh. I have no opinion of him at all.
Skookum said:
I thought Cheney won, but I missed the first 45 minutes when apparently they were both gettin' a little cwazy.Skookum said:
Dry and bland is fine when you're that quick and comfortable. Bush needs to take a few lessons on composure from that man. Yes, he is the spawn of satan, but he is smart and he is smooth. And he knows his ****. Edwards looked far from presidential, which is fine. A lot of rah-rahing for JK. Looked very young and over-exhuberant next to Cheney. Still, he knows what he needs to know and adds a little emotion to the ticket. He is to Kerry what Bush is to Cheney... the guy that everyone wants to like, even if he's completely useless at his job (although he's got domestic policy dialed
edit: and I thought deferring on some questions was a very smart move. no one holds it against him, he doesn't get backed into a wall on what he knows is a loaded situation, and it makes it look like he has some restraint... very necessary after all his fire and brimstone speaches these last few weeks. Made it look like he was entirely in control of this debate. Again, Bush should take some notes.
I felt he didn't say anything because it was too personal of a question. What goes on in his family is his business, and shouldn't be fodder for a debate, IMHO.Skookum said:
Thats funny, some people thought Clinton's personal experiences were important to the country. How about the Bush family - always talking about how important family values are but dropping Neil Bush's marriage of over 20 years of marriage with nothing more than a letter to his wife - there is some family values for you :nuts:Jesus said:
Were you watching the same debate? Edwards did come off as a little anxious at first, and Cheney did a MUCH better job then GW.BurlySurly said:
Depending on your political views you will pick which side you AGREE with. However if you were to score this strictly on their ability to DEBATE (it is called "flowing" and it is based on point vs counter point etc) Edwards won.
Obviosly those aforementioned people don't mind talking about they're personal lives. But it's pretty obvious, Cheney doesn't.syadasti said:
Still, what does all that have to do with Cheney?
I thought both had some valid points last night, but Cheney won this one, and Bush lost the last one.Mtb_Rob_FL said:
Seeing as I don't like either of the candidates, I feel I have a more neutral perspective than a lot of other people on this board.
Channel 2 (NBC I think) played a funny clip afterwards. It was Cheney in an interview in 2001 saying... "Striking Iraq will be a strike into the heart of the enenemies that attacked us on 9/11"... it was good chit, especially since right before that they played a clipfrom the debate of Cheney denying the fact that he had ever said anything like that.
The reason that Cheney did better than people thought is because he's really good at flat out lying with a totally straight face.
To quote my 2nd favorite political joke of the last 4 years, "Mr. Cheney, Your pants are on fire".
The reason that Cheney did better than people thought is because he's really good at flat out lying with a totally straight face.
To quote my 2nd favorite political joke of the last 4 years, "Mr. Cheney, Your pants are on fire".
dude cheney is a friggins schmuck. he didnt even answer any questions hardly. how about when he was asked about job creation and economy and all he talked about was education? Education is a good thing ya know but it doesnt make jobs, it just makes lots of well educated jobless people. Or when edwards brought up the fact that cheneys company halliburton was under investigation but still making all of the money from the non-bid reconstruction effort and all he had to say was that the accusations were false and that will be proved. all edwards was doing was pointing out the obvious, that Haliburton was under investigation and under federal mandate they were not supposed to be receiving 100 pay unitl they are no longer under investigation, all cheney did through the whole thing was stare and deny stuff that edwards said. i think cheney was the one that got being as how he didnt answer a single friggin question the whole night.
I didn't like either of the candidates last night. Both of them were lying or stretching the truth whenever they got a chance. We are doomedgolgiaparatus said:
As you said, though, Cheney already has lots of sound bites on record, so its easier to pull one out of the archives where he says completely the opposite on some issue :nuts:
That's easy. When you support amending the constitution to make sure that homosexual people do not enjoy the same rights that heterosexual people do, you open yourself up to questions when your daughter is gay.Jesus said:
She is working for his campaign, remember...
I agree with you about Cheney, BUT...biggins said:
Edwards didn't answer a few questions also. Remeber when asked if Iraq was better off without Saddam?
He did the boot-scoot-boogie on that one.
Is there a law that states that if you are involved in a campaign, you have to tell everyone about your personal life?Silver said:
No!
Just cause the majority of people do, doesn't mean you have to or should.
yeah but there were only a couple of them that were like that. it just proves that at least edwards and kerry are thinking about the issues. all cheney did was basically say that every decision they have made has been the right one proving that the next 4 years is gonna be fu;ll of recession, job loss, lies and war as well. i dont think i want another 4 years of that. but hey who cares its only our country.
Like I said earlier, I don't like either candidate. And for some reason I like Kerry even less than Bush.biggins said:
But I think stuff needs to change, especially when it comes to Iraq, and things don't change by doing the same thing, you have to do something different.
Which also makes me wonder, if Kerry really would be different. He changes his mind so much, by the time he got into office, he just might agree with everything Bush was doing! :love:
There's also the question of what Kerry actually COULD do differently. Do they think the Bush administration is trying to make more of a quagmire out of the place? Not train Iraqis? (Not that that's a realistic measure...they'll need foriegn troops for years to come).
The error, if there was one, was starting the whole mess in the first place. Don't think anyone will be able to sort it out in short order now...and I think Kerry's setting himself up with the wine-and-roses picture he's painting of a Kerry-led effort in Iraq. Then again, he probably knows that, and is only worried about getting into the White House, so he can blame the lack of success on the previous administration.
MD
The error, if there was one, was starting the whole mess in the first place. Don't think anyone will be able to sort it out in short order now...and I think Kerry's setting himself up with the wine-and-roses picture he's painting of a Kerry-led effort in Iraq. Then again, he probably knows that, and is only worried about getting into the White House, so he can blame the lack of success on the previous administration.
MD
I can think of lots of countries that would be better off without their leader. That doesn't mean America needs to be spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives to remove those leaders just cuz "they are better off". That is exactly what this war has come to. That question is such shallow BS and it's the only thing the Bush administration has to fall back on at this point.Jesus said:
You've been listening to propaganda too much. He doesn't change his mind any more than Bush or any other politician does. On complex issues, this is not a bad thing, but a necessary strategy to make corrections. Nobody is always right and Bush can't admit that which is a major flaw in leadership. You have to learn from your mistakes and strive to do better.Jesus said:
Each of them try to claim the other is a flip-flopper, only the Republicans were the first to make the claim so it seems more valid for people to lazy to check the facts. Issues, bills, etc, aren't simple and clear cut. They might be for the issue but not how is handled.
An example both of them talk about is Kerry claimed Bush wasn't getting them the body armor they needed and then Bush said Kerry vetoed a bill for the money. The fact of the matter was both parties supported funding for the troops. Some legislators like Kerry wanted a version of the bill the only funded the troops. The administration wanted a version of the bill that additional gave 20 billion to contracts for reconstruction. Kerry vetoed that version because he didn't support no-bid Halliburton contracts. So the reality is both wanted to support the troops and what they didn't support was competing versions of a bill.
You have to know better than to take what either of them says at face value :nuts:
That question was from the moderator last night, not the bush admin.Ridemonkey said:
I was happy that Edwards brought up the facts about Kerry 'voting against defense,' too. Those were early-90s bills that CHENY HIMSELF was vehemently opposed to, too...logically so, given the circumstances at the time. But now they make it seem like a post-9/11 decision and ignore the current VP's endorsement of the same bills!syadasti said:
God, both sides suck so bad.
MD
This is so funny... people are like "thats conspiracy theory crap"... seriously, Cheney was CEO of the company that was given XX billon dollars to rebuild Iraq and everyone else that tried to get in on the job (by that I mean every other country) was told to forget it.biggins said:
One of the peoblems with this country right now is that it is being run like an underhanded corporation, and look who we have in the big office... 2 corporate CEO's and 1 of them is a corporate CEO flunkie
Edwards got own3d. The media agrees. We all saw it. He had nothing for the master debator. Edwards was piecing together crap arguments all night long and Cheney shot them down one after another. I think edwards pretty much didnt answer a single question that came his way. It was great, and when Bush gets re elected, this debate will be ANOTHER reason why.
God bless.
God bless.
You're right. Kerry is probably too much of a peacemonger to ever drop a bomb. Couldnt even stand up to Howard Dean.biggins said: