Lance Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Did anybody actually watch this? It looks like a lot of people decided it wasn’t important. Anyway I think Cheney undoubtedly won. Edwards just seemed childish trying to argue with him. I loved the way Edwards told us a ‘personal story’ during one of his answers. It was mush more entertaining than the first presidential because there was so many personal attacks. Unfortunately the buzzer was never used, although Edward interrupted Cheney at one point. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 i couldnt really care which president can debate better..... its about which president is a better president, and to be a president you do not need to be able to debate, you need to make good choices etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I might be going out on a limb here... but don't debates help you know which president you think is the better one? So you can know where they stand on the issues? I don't know... maybe, that could be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1dermon Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 ahh the media...if you watched the debate, you would know that it was edwards who had the edge. and cheyney actually took over for edwards early in the debate and talked for the entire time of edwards 2 minute question...talk about interruption. cheyney couldnt back himself up, the only thing he was persistant in saying was that we need bush in order to defeat the terrorists...he never elaborated. he didnt say jack crap about why we are in iraq and not searching for osama. he admnits that osama isnt in iraq, but zirqawi is, and zirqawi is the man we want...well, osama is supposedly the mastermind, so why are we relentlessly persuing a minor person in the al quida organization? instead of the "leader". also, we went in to capture saddam, zirqawi was nowhere to be found in any of their reasoning before we had got saddam. who has limited if any ties with al quida. but now we're rebuilding iraq, which is for no reason because our mission is to destroy terrorism. also, bush was asked repeadedly to restructure that bill in which the soldiers armor fund was in conjunction with a fluff giveaway of 7 billion dollars. thats why kerry and edwards didnt vote for it, because that 7 million dollars wasnt being accounted for, it was going to someone. at the expense of the american tax payers. who are already bearing an incredible burden because of the tax cut and the war all rolled into one. not to mention that 45+ million people dont have health care and anothe 8 million people dont have work. and that 8 million people is only people counted from people who used to have jobs. so in reality, 8 million people who USED to have jobs are out of work and however many have entered the working field in bush's term have not made a significant impact, obviously. since every month new jobs are created at a rate of 50% of expectation. maybe if bush had a clue and stopped outsourcing to china and india...the dollar continues to lose ground on the foreign market, americans are continually becoming enemies to other countries, and no other country will ever give us a loan again because of "our" carelessness in spending. sounds great. looks like 4 more for bush would be suitable to completely turn this country into a slovakia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 The BBC radio said that Edwards excelled in the debate, that it was a contest between a machine gun and a water pistol. Cheney was outclassed and caught out at every turn, his crude attempts at pulling sympathy through patriotism were torn down and shown up as the shyster tricks they were. Funny, by all reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted October 6, 2004 Author Share Posted October 6, 2004 The BBC radio said that Edwards excelled in the debate, that it was a contest between a machine gun and a water pistol. Cheney was outclassed and caught out at every turn, his crude attempts at pulling sympathy through patriotism were torn down and shown up as the shyster tricks they were. Huh? I heard the opposite... every time Edward 'squirted' Cheney he turned a howitzer on him. Edward also appeared a bit arrogant with his water pistol and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted October 6, 2004 Author Share Posted October 6, 2004 Did you guys watch the debate? You know that 98min long segment where they (Cheney and Edwards) debated? Not the edited versions that attempted to make Edward look good? I don’t know how you guys (if you REALLY watched the debate) could say that Edwards was the victor... People were calling Edwards 'silky pony' after the debate. Also just because you’re planning on voting for Kerry does not make Edwards the victor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1dermon Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 actually, it was cheyney spewing all the personal remarks about kerry. and all he could say was the record speaks for itself. lol. well, if that was the case, then we have a coke addict, a drunk driver, AND a liar as a president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted October 6, 2004 Author Share Posted October 6, 2004 Well it was entertaining. Edwards got a bit flustered there. At one point when Cheney was talking about Edward disrespecting our troops and other countries that have helped us Edwards inturupted Cheney saying "no, no I didnt say that, thats not true, no, not true" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Did anybody actually watch this? It looks like a lot of people decided it wasn’t important. Anyway I think Cheney undoubtedly won. Edwards just seemed childish trying to argue with him. I loved the way Edwards told us a ‘personal story’ during one of his answers. It was mush more entertaining than the first presidential because there was so many personal attacks. Unfortunately the buzzer was never used' date=' although Edward interrupted Cheney at one point. Any thoughts?[/quote'] Chaney clearly won the debate. Edwards won on rhetoric, Chaney won on substance. I loved it when Chaney whacked Edwards on the 90% Americans killed in Iraq. He also whacked him on the global trust, and their records in congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted October 6, 2004 Author Share Posted October 6, 2004 Chaney clearly won the debate. Edwards won on rhetoric, Chaney won on substance. I loved it when Chaney whacked Edwards on the 90% Americans killed in Iraq. He also whacked him on the global trust, and their records in congress. Exactly. Cheney obviously knew what he was doing. He had all the indisputable facts that Edward just couldn’t stand up against. I loved the look on Edwards face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 the difference between bush and cheney was that cheney lied through his teeth wheras bush just stood there dumbfounded. sure, cheney had a response for every one of edwards' points, but that does not make the response accurate. in the first 10 minutes alone i could actually point out 10 lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 The BBC radio said that Edwards excelled in the debate, that it was a contest between a machine gun and a water pistol. What debate were they watching? If the BBC really said that I think it's quite revealing as to how far left they lean. Cheney clearly dominated Edwards, and I'm not saying that because I'm a republican. I'll admit when someone honestly performed poorly (Bush last week), but Cheney was all over Edwards. It was interesting watching Edwards frustratingly concede the point on Iraqi casualties. I didn't think he clarified very well on the "World Test" statement Cheney referenced. The moderator recognized this and asked him directly and he still danced all around it. Edwards sounded like a mini-Kerry. Did you notice that he violated the same rule twice within a 30 second span when the moderator asked them to explain without using either presidential candidates name why they would be a good VP? Edwards explained why Kerry would be a good president, and Cheney explained why he was a good VP. "Well John Kerry and I...oops sorry ::chuckle::." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 in the first 10 minutes alone i could actually point out 10 lies. Go for it, I'll be here to verify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with Al Qaida. and right there, we have two lies. first, hussein wasnt a state sponsor of terror. giving the families of suicide bombers $25k is actually a lot better than paying israeli soldiers money to kill palestinian civilians. second, there was no tie with al-qaida, and tenet, (mentioned by cheney moments later) confirmed that statement. The effort that we've mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. lie number three What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do lie number four The world is far safer today because Saddam Hussein is in jail, his government is no longer in power. lie number five We've made significant progress in Iraq. number six success in Iraq will be reached when we have turned governance over to the Iraqi people seven I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror. 8 and 9 And the point is that that's the place where you're most likely to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years. ten and this was in something like 2 responses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 first, hussein wasnt a state sponsor of terror. giving the families of suicide bombers $25kGiving $25k to terrorist's families isn't sponsoring terrorism? Do you think it was maybe just a little encouragement for terrorists to go ahead and blow themselves up in public places--their family would be rewarded for it? actually a lot better than paying israeli soldiers money to kill palestinian civilians.What exactly are you insinuating here? Why don't you just say it outright? The effort that we've mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. The world is far safer today because Saddam Hussein is in jail, his government is no longer in power. Subjective. You can't call any of those an outright lie. We've made significant progress in Iraq. Dismantling the Iraqi regime and capturing Saddam Hussein isn't significant progress? (Yes/No) Public elections next year (hopefully) won't be significant progress? (Yes/No) success in Iraq will be reached when we have turned governance over to the Iraqi peopleEstablishing a new democratic society in the middle-east isn't success? (Yes/No) What is then? I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror.Can you give the quote where he did say there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11? If Saddam sponsered terrorism, doesn't that constitute a track record with terror? And the point is that that's the place where you're most likely to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years.You can't say definitively that was a lie. You said that Saddam giving families of suicide bombers 25k is not a form of state-sponsored terror. Do you stand by that statement?. Do you stand by the statement that "Capturing Saddam Hussein, dismantling the regime, and holding public elections in Iraq" is not significant progress? Do you stand by the statement that "Success will not have been acheived when the government is turned over to the Iraqi people?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 success in Iraq will be reached when we have turned governance over to the Iraqi people Can you explain to me how this is a lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jattaway Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 I agree with every statement listed. They are accurate as I see them, and as he sees them, you calling them a lie does not make them one. It was a bold statement, just not an accurate one on your part. There are 2 "lies" that I know of, one was that in his time attending senate meetings as VP, he had yet to meet Kerry. The Drudge Report says they were there at the sam time on 3 occassions, one where they sat side by side. I can easily accept that he did not remember seeing them there or that they did not speak, but that is not what he said. His point which is also important is that Kerry and Edwards are seldom doing their jobs as Senators attending fewer than 20 % of their voting obligations. In short, free riding like the parasites. That was his point, anyway. The other "lie" was sending researchers to factcheck.com rather than factcheck.org Both errors can be attributed to speaking "from the hip" without access to fact finding resources. Since this was all unprepared, I would not call either lies, but mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Giving $25k to terrorist's families isn't sponsoring terrorism? Do you think it was maybe just a little encouragement for terrorists to go ahead and blow themselves up in public places--their family would be rewarded for it? dont you believe that their families get the shaft when the patriarch dies? it's not their fault, you know. think of it as compensation for the families of a dead infantry soldier in iraq. What exactly are you insinuating here? Why don't you just say it outright? what i was saying was that the compensation for families of suicide bombers is actually better, in my mind, than paying israeli soldiers to kill palestinian civilians, as mentioned above. if this does not clarify my statement, please ask me a question outright. Subjective. You can't call any of those an outright lie. i can if he doesn't believe it himself Dismantling the Iraqi regime and capturing Saddam Hussein isn't significant progress? (Yes/No) Public elections next year (hopefully) won't be significant progress? (Yes/No) destroying the political, economic and social infrastructure of iraq wasn't significant progress. capturing hussein did little for anyone. Establishing a new democratic society in the middle-east isn't success? (Yes/No) What is then? that is not success. it will not be over then. also, this is extremely wishful thinking, and i believe it will not work for a very long time, if it does finally end up working. Can you give the quote where he did say there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11? If Saddam sponsered terrorism, doesn't that constitute a track record with terror? do a vivisimo search: http://vivisimo.com/search?query=cheney+iraq+9%2F11+connection&v%3Asources=Web&x=0&y=0 "Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender , Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003 WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks." But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/ "Monday 29 September 2003 In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation. " http://www.truthout.com/docs_03/093003C.shtml You said that Saddam giving families of suicide bombers 25k is not a form of state-sponsored terror. Do you stand by that statement?. yes, and i explained why above. out of curiosity, do you believe that the united states giving weapons to israel is a form of state-sponsored terror? Do you stand by the statement that "Capturing Saddam Hussein, dismantling the regime, and holding public elections in Iraq" is not significant progress? yes, and again, i explained my reasons above Do you stand by the statement that "Success will not have been acheived when the government is turned over to the Iraqi people?" yes, and once again, i explained my reasons above Can you explain to me how this is a lie? it is a lie because cheney knows it is not true. having "elections" isn't going to change things. as long as people dont want elections, the polls will be blown up and chaos will ensue. the government will not have much power at all when they are handed power; what sort of treasury do you really think they have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 So expression of one's opinion can be a "lie"? Would you say that if Edwards said it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jattaway Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Don't talk crazy pangloss, of course not. It is only a lie if you don't agree with it. It is the new "subjective" truth of the left. I was going to try to explain but ended up with a long satirical rant on the party of government entitlement. What it really boils down to is: The war see to be going well to conservatives because they understand that it is a lot of work liberating 25 million people with 80% of the neighboring nations wanting you to fail. What has been done in Iraq has never been against so many with so few, so fast and with so little blood shed. How that is anything but amazing, I will never understand. The war is going so badly according to liberals because they are the party of instant gratification where the government, not hard work solves the problems. Iraq can be a free nation, but not with people telling you how you are going to fail at every turn getting in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucidDreamer Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 How did I know that the liberals were going to think that Edwards won and that the Republicans were going to think that Cheney won? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jattaway Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 Most minds are made up with both sides detesting the other. THe point of rational discourse from either side is probably past at this point. Though, I really think (obviously being from the close minded Right) that Kerry and Edwards are still looking for a platform and have failed to take a stand on any issue in either debate. Kerry looked more polished than Bush in the first debate, so that was a win, on substance, I thought Bush did fine, but Kerry did great for having no real position on anything. In the VP debate, Edwards just looked inexperienced by comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted October 6, 2004 Author Share Posted October 6, 2004 Because the democrats can’t admit their loses. Most republicans would admit that the first presidential didn’t go so well and yet when Edward gets slaughtered they try to say he won. My guess is they are hoping that nobody actually watched the debate so they can get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted October 6, 2004 Share Posted October 6, 2004 funny you mention the slaughter. the polls dont show slaughter like they did when kerry p0wn3d bush the other day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now