Oh Yeah........ the debate, I heard the last 30 minutes on the radio, so I don't know what they looked like. And you couldnt pick a winner from that, and I was buzzed.
I just remember reading the quote later about Kerry wanting to GIVE nuclear material to Iran.
-n
Poll for Tonight's Debate
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Just curious to know what you guys thought of the VP Debate last night.
Like the first Debate, I thought Edwards did a fair enough job presenting arguments for supporting John Kerry. What he failed to do was give reason for why HE should be VP. I don't even need to mention that he broke the rules for at least 1 question in particular, but more than that he went over time on Every question. So while I was impressed with his persistance, I was turned off by his lack of details with regard to himself and like Kerry choose to back track to add on to his previous statements.
Cheney, IMO won this debate on both substance and style. He remained calm throughout, where Bush failed, he stayed under time, and did not try to rebut anything negative against himself as presented by Edwards(With a few exceptions). I did find however, his attitude to be poor considering the stakes.
So I scored the debate 2/0 in favor of Cheney.
What did you guys think?
Like the first Debate, I thought Edwards did a fair enough job presenting arguments for supporting John Kerry. What he failed to do was give reason for why HE should be VP. I don't even need to mention that he broke the rules for at least 1 question in particular, but more than that he went over time on Every question. So while I was impressed with his persistance, I was turned off by his lack of details with regard to himself and like Kerry choose to back track to add on to his previous statements.
Cheney, IMO won this debate on both substance and style. He remained calm throughout, where Bush failed, he stayed under time, and did not try to rebut anything negative against himself as presented by Edwards(With a few exceptions). I did find however, his attitude to be poor considering the stakes.
So I scored the debate 2/0 in favor of Cheney.
What did you guys think?
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
-
millenniumtree
- Multidex Master
- Posts: 274
- Joined: 09 Aug 2004 21:24
- Location: Stoughton, WI
- Contact:
If Cheney were running for president, Kerry wouldn't stand a chance, he's a much better speaker, and seems more believable.
HOWEVER.
There was at least one huge error in what Cheney had to say. He keeps repeating that there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaida, however, the intelligence was largely disproven. He keeps referring back to those intelligence reports that were proven to be false months ago.
I agree that Edwards went back to defend himself a bit too often, and left only 1/3 of his time sometimes to answering the actual question at hand, instead of the question before it... However, I think Edwards did reasonably well, and his facts were a bit more factual.
I dissagree with the $200 billion figure that Kerry/Edwards keep referring to, because that was disproven as well, it's closer to 150 billion. However, before this damn thing is over, the war will probably cost 200 billion anyway. :P
IMO the incorrect Cheney figure was more criminal, as it's a false justification for going to war, instead of a sloppy cost figure. One thing is for sure, this war has cost the U.S. MANY TIMES what the gulf war cost, largely because of a lack of international support.
I want that international support back, and that's why I want Kerry/Edwards to win.
HOWEVER.
There was at least one huge error in what Cheney had to say. He keeps repeating that there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaida, however, the intelligence was largely disproven. He keeps referring back to those intelligence reports that were proven to be false months ago.
I agree that Edwards went back to defend himself a bit too often, and left only 1/3 of his time sometimes to answering the actual question at hand, instead of the question before it... However, I think Edwards did reasonably well, and his facts were a bit more factual.
I dissagree with the $200 billion figure that Kerry/Edwards keep referring to, because that was disproven as well, it's closer to 150 billion. However, before this damn thing is over, the war will probably cost 200 billion anyway. :P
IMO the incorrect Cheney figure was more criminal, as it's a false justification for going to war, instead of a sloppy cost figure. One thing is for sure, this war has cost the U.S. MANY TIMES what the gulf war cost, largely because of a lack of international support.
I want that international support back, and that's why I want Kerry/Edwards to win.
-
millenniumtree
- Multidex Master
- Posts: 274
- Joined: 09 Aug 2004 21:24
- Location: Stoughton, WI
- Contact:
On Cheney in the debate.
I won't vote for a man who is given a chance to address the nation and turns it down . . . at least four times in the debate.
I would rather have someone in charge that has something to say to the poeple . . . even if edwards consistently started each response with something the jury would find pleasing before answering part of the question in a round-about way.
Did anyone else notice Cheney was so far hunched over his jacket was out of focus, and he appeared to be this head and hands floating in mid air ?
I won't vote for a man who is given a chance to address the nation and turns it down . . . at least four times in the debate.
I would rather have someone in charge that has something to say to the poeple . . . even if edwards consistently started each response with something the jury would find pleasing before answering part of the question in a round-about way.
Did anyone else notice Cheney was so far hunched over his jacket was out of focus, and he appeared to be this head and hands floating in mid air ?
YesDid anyone else notice Cheney was so far hunched over his jacket was out of focus, and he appeared to be this head and hands floating in mid air ?
. I scored him down for a poor attitude. His hunchiness contributed to that decision.I also agree that Cheney although smoking compared to Edwards is not as affluent as Kerry.
One thing sticks out though about international support. We asked for it from France and Russia and got a "We will VETO any act of War" response from them.
For Kerry supporters, what makes you think that Kerry will have any more influence over France and Russia than Bush?
And also, how do you expect the War will go (what will happen) if Kerry A.) Gets international support from France and Russia, and B.) if there is still insurgent fighting on the ground?
This baffles me because even if we get more help, we will still be fighting and people will still be dying. By placing more people in harms way you can only expect the numbers of dead to increase.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
An understanding of reality would be the short answer.what makes you think that Kerry will have any more influence over France and Russia than Bush?
Basically I think Kerry has a more global view of the world, and Bush is very USA-centric. Bush took the approach of saying to the world. . . .
"Iraq is a threat to the US, we are not going to wait for the UN inspectors. You should join our coalition, or else you won't get reconstruction contracts "
Kerry can say
"Bush fucked up and got us into this mess. YOU , yes YOU russia, italy, france, Germany ... are directly affected by this mistake. We need your help to provide security so we ALL can be safer. I can't undo what Bush has done, but I can try my best to make it right. Who wants to help, we really really need it to make the world safer"
Bush has squandered US credibility in the world, he has a zero percent chance of recruiting help. He pissed on the UN, and then when it was time for reconstruction, he put $$$ for his US business friends in front of the security and freedom for the Iraqi citizen.
Kerry represent a change in American leadership, and i think he can sell the situation better by being able to understand a larger amount of the world. He can relate to other countries why it is in their best interest to help.
And by help you mean ... ?He can relate to other countries why it is in their best interest to help.
Can you answer the second question I posed earlier? Just curious, because I believe regardless of who wins, war is still going to be a part of the next 4 years.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
Wow 
- We agree.
I liked a lot of what Kerry had to say, I'm most interested in what the budget debate will be like.
If you list all that Kerry has proposed.
-Healthcare for children, Seniors, etc...
-Coalition of many
-Aids research $$$
-Education $$$
-etc...
I will be interested to see who exactly foots this bill. I, like yourself, have not seen pay increases that match inflation. Nor pay increases that match the rising cost of healthcare. So I am making less than say 2 years ago when I started this new job. As I am sure being a govt. employee you are not too thrilled with the govt. pay freeze.
Do you believe Kerry will offer anything to compensate for his promise to kill the tax cuts? They actually made a difference for my family of 4. $800 extra in child tax credits and the $400 refund deal adds up to a real live $1200. I am not a starving family of 4, but I believe there are many more like my family that are starving and really need the cuts.
- We agree.I liked a lot of what Kerry had to say, I'm most interested in what the budget debate will be like.
If you list all that Kerry has proposed.
-Healthcare for children, Seniors, etc...
-Coalition of many
-Aids research $$$
-Education $$$
-etc...
I will be interested to see who exactly foots this bill. I, like yourself, have not seen pay increases that match inflation. Nor pay increases that match the rising cost of healthcare. So I am making less than say 2 years ago when I started this new job. As I am sure being a govt. employee you are not too thrilled with the govt. pay freeze.
Do you believe Kerry will offer anything to compensate for his promise to kill the tax cuts? They actually made a difference for my family of 4. $800 extra in child tax credits and the $400 refund deal adds up to a real live $1200. I am not a starving family of 4, but I believe there are many more like my family that are starving and really need the cuts.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
[quote="FlexThis" ]because I believe regardless of who wins, war is still going to be a part of the next 4 years.[/quote]
Definitely, there`s no question about that.
The thing to think about is this: if Bush hadn`t invaded Iraq, and instead focussed his attention/the military/tax money on Afghanistan instead, would the US have to deal with a messy war for the next 4 years?
OR
If Bush had invaded Iraq with the support of the international community, instead of alienating all our allies, how much easier would the War in Iraq be for us?
Regardless who wins in November, we will have to deal with a messy, difficult war in Iraq. Whose fault is it that we are there? Why are we there? We now know the administration had plenty of evidence suggesting Iraq was no threat to the US, but Bush went in anyway.
This war was not necessary. Bush created a mess in Iraq by starting an unnecessary war and dealing with the post-war (anybody who calls the situation in Iraq now `peace` is on drugs) incompetently. Now our military is stretched thin, over 1000 US soldiers are dead, the Taliban are regrouping, huge parts of Iraq are controlled by insurgents, Al Qaida recruiting is up, and because Bush gave Americas tax surplus to the wealthiest 1% of Americans, its hard to fund the war properly without slashing domestic funding.
I remember Jon Stewart on the Daily Show saying something like this: `It`s like somebody drives your car into a ditch, then tells you: "you can only trust me to get this car out of the ditch. Don`t trust some NEW guy to do that, he has no experience!"`
War will be a part of the next 4 years because Bush put us in that situation. Whether the war continues to be badly run (Rumsfeld not fired after Abu Ghraib, christian General who called for `crusade` not fired, troops made to stay longer than their tour of duty, not enough troops in Iraq, body bags/coffins of returning soldiers not allowed to be shown, no international support, etc) by the same people who got us in that mess in the first place... thats up to the voters.
I dunno, 9/11 happened on Bush`s watch. Osama Bin Laden got away on Bush`s watch. The world lost its fear and respect of America under Bush`s watch. America got dragged into an unnecessary, messy war in Iraq by Bush. Do you feel safer?
Definitely, there`s no question about that.
The thing to think about is this: if Bush hadn`t invaded Iraq, and instead focussed his attention/the military/tax money on Afghanistan instead, would the US have to deal with a messy war for the next 4 years?
OR
If Bush had invaded Iraq with the support of the international community, instead of alienating all our allies, how much easier would the War in Iraq be for us?
Regardless who wins in November, we will have to deal with a messy, difficult war in Iraq. Whose fault is it that we are there? Why are we there? We now know the administration had plenty of evidence suggesting Iraq was no threat to the US, but Bush went in anyway.
This war was not necessary. Bush created a mess in Iraq by starting an unnecessary war and dealing with the post-war (anybody who calls the situation in Iraq now `peace` is on drugs) incompetently. Now our military is stretched thin, over 1000 US soldiers are dead, the Taliban are regrouping, huge parts of Iraq are controlled by insurgents, Al Qaida recruiting is up, and because Bush gave Americas tax surplus to the wealthiest 1% of Americans, its hard to fund the war properly without slashing domestic funding.
I remember Jon Stewart on the Daily Show saying something like this: `It`s like somebody drives your car into a ditch, then tells you: "you can only trust me to get this car out of the ditch. Don`t trust some NEW guy to do that, he has no experience!"`
War will be a part of the next 4 years because Bush put us in that situation. Whether the war continues to be badly run (Rumsfeld not fired after Abu Ghraib, christian General who called for `crusade` not fired, troops made to stay longer than their tour of duty, not enough troops in Iraq, body bags/coffins of returning soldiers not allowed to be shown, no international support, etc) by the same people who got us in that mess in the first place... thats up to the voters.
I dunno, 9/11 happened on Bush`s watch. Osama Bin Laden got away on Bush`s watch. The world lost its fear and respect of America under Bush`s watch. America got dragged into an unnecessary, messy war in Iraq by Bush. Do you feel safer?
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Bin Laden "got away" a ton of times on Clinton's watch, even after repeated attacks on American targets.
Served up on a silver platter, Bin Laden was there for the taking, but Clinton/Berger said no.
Tons of chances to nab this "most-wanted list" criminal wasted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in part that the troops shouldn't be there.
I think that our troops are some of our best and bravest.
When the bombs really start to drop, we will need them to defend us.
Many of the schmuck, residents of the U.S. are useless , with a percentage who actually agree with Bin Laden.
So the value of the servicemen exceeds the motley collection of humanity that make up the "residents" of the U.S.
-n
Served up on a silver platter, Bin Laden was there for the taking, but Clinton/Berger said no.
Tons of chances to nab this "most-wanted list" criminal wasted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in part that the troops shouldn't be there.
I think that our troops are some of our best and bravest.
When the bombs really start to drop, we will need them to defend us.
Many of the schmuck, residents of the U.S. are useless , with a percentage who actually agree with Bin Laden.
So the value of the servicemen exceeds the motley collection of humanity that make up the "residents" of the U.S.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
carl winslow
- Atomsmashasaurus Dex
- Posts: 994
- Joined: 14 Jun 2003 21:54
I think I know what you are referring to, and if your source is what I think it is, this is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I get back to work on Tuesday, I will post again then.HighDemonslayer wrote:Bin Laden "got away" a ton of times on Clinton's watch, even after repeated attacks on American targets.
Served up on a silver platter, Bin Laden was there for the taking, but Clinton/Berger said no.
Tons of chances to nab this "most-wanted list" criminal wasted.
-n
A couple other things to keep in mind: Clinton was actively going after Al Qaeda, even before September 11th. Bush on the other hand, did jack shit counter terrorism-wise until after September 11th, and then he let OBL go.
-
bigdirtyfoot
- Sloppy
- Posts: 3142
- Joined: 22 Apr 2002 12:30
- Location: NC
