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:Screw Bush, I want Cheney for president.
Isn't he already, really?BurlySurly said:Answer a question Edwards just ONE!
Screw Bush, I want Cheney for president.
yes.MikeD said:Isn't he already, really?
Skookum said:yes.
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 fesicous 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 thought Cheney won, but I missed the first 45 minutes when apparently they were both gettin' a little cwazy.Skookum said:A tie, Cheney came off dry and bland. Edwards came off cocky and sly.
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:yes.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 fesicous 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.
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: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.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/Politics/Neil_Bush_041001-1.html
Oct. 1, 2004 — President George W. Bush's younger brother, Neil Bush, 49, has put himself and his prominent family into an unflattering election year spotlight.
In a revealing videotaped divorce proceeding obtained by 20/20, Neil disclosed numerous business deals that gave him generous financial benefits for minimal effort. Also detailed were the startling sexual liaisons he had while on business trips in Asia.
In the March 3, 2003, deposition, Neil testified to earning $60,000 a year to be co-chairman of Crest Investment Company for, on average, three or four hours a week of work.
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:Hahahha!
Edwards has nothing. Nothing at all. This is geat!
Obviosly those aforementioned people don't mind talking about they're personal lives. But it's pretty obvious, Cheney doesn't.syadasti 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:
I thought both had some valid points last night, but Cheney won this one, and Bush lost the last one.Mtb_Rob_FL 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.
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.
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:The reason that Cheney did better than people thought is because he's really good at flat out
lying with a totally straight face.
golgiaparatus said: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".
it was actually an e-mail.syadasti 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:
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:Obviosly those aforementioned people don't mind talking about they're personal lives. But it's pretty obvious, Cheney doesn't.
Still, what does all that have to do with Cheney?
BurlySurly said:Hahahha!
Edwards has nothing. Nothing at all. This is geat!
Silver said: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.
She is working for his campaign, remember...
I agree with you about Cheney, BUT...biggins said: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.
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: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.
She is working for his campaign, remember...
Like I said earlier, I don't like either candidate. And for some reason I like Kerry even less than Bush.biggins said: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.
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:I agree with you about Cheney, BUT...
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.
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: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:
That question was from the moderator last night, not the bush admin.Ridemonkey said: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.
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: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:
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:cheney doesnt own SHLT!
oh except a company that got a 7.5 million?billion? dollar bid without having to bid at all for reconstruction of a country that his business buddy decided to bomb.
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:hehehe golgi, you know people rag on kerry because of the Heinz ketchup, i'd much rather have a ketchup family running the country than two energy tycoons running it. i dont think kerry will bomb any countries for their vast supply of untapped tomatos.