[kwyckemynd00]

I thought Cheney did very well, especially on foreign policy issues. I heard some people saying that Edwards did better on the domestic issues, I disagree. I think it was more of a draw. Edwards fumbled around a lot and Cheney was able to rebut many of his major accusations. But Edwards did do much better on that half of the debate and did make some good points; I don't think his ticket would make improvements on these things, however. You've got to remember, these accusations are easily made b/c hindsight is 20/20.

[darius]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

I thought Cheney did very well, especially on foreign policy issues. I heard some people saying that Edwards did better on the domestic issues, I disagree. I think it was more of a draw. Edwards fumbled around a lot and Cheney was able to rebut many of his major accusations. But Edwards did do much better on that half of the debate and did make some good points; I don't think his ticket would make improvements on these things, however. You've got to remember, these accusations are easily made b/c hindsight is 20/20.

Yeah. As a Kerry supporter, I felt Cheney did a little bit better than Edwards, but overall it was very close. Nothing like Bush's horrible defeat to Kerry in the first debate.

It was funny when Edwards talked about Haliburton. Cheney looked a bit tense. He didn't have much of a rebutal to Edwards claims on it either.

[size]

Halliburton discussion is very odd. The reason being that Halliburton is one of the few companies in the world that does what it does. In addition, Halliburton is the best at what it does.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by size

Halliburton discussion is very odd. The reason being that Halliburton is one of the few companies in the world that does what it does. In addition, Halliburton is the best at what it does.

ROFL. You hit the nail on the head. Of course Haliburton will get the work if nobody does it better. ROFL. I like how he mentioned the factchecks.org (or whatever the website was) for all of the conspiracy thoerists victims to look at. That was a smart move.

EDIT: I take it back about fackcheck.org...it's a liberal POS website that has one story that partially exonerates Haliburton; not only that, but **** Cheney sent people to "factcheck.com" which was non-existant until tonight! After that messup, the website was bought up by left-leaning democrats and redirects people to a George Soros website!! WTF? Cheney's supposed to be a genius and he does this ****....grrrr.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by darius

....Nothing like Bush's horrible defeat to Kerry in the first debate.
....

horrible defeat....not quite. anyone who's read the transcripts knows that Kerry did nothing more than "sound good". I.E. If kerry's objective was to go from A---> B he would start at a, make a big elaborate twisting and winding u-turn that felt like a rollercoaster, and end right back up where he started, totally avoiding issue B. Bush did horrible, Kerry didn't defeat bush horribly. I dare you to ask anybody what Kerry said or what his plan is, as far as what they took from the debate. I doubt you'll get much from them. Bush was horrid though, I'll give you that. He could have "trashed" Kerry royally on many things that he just left in limbo after short rebuttals to obviously false charges. He screwed up bad.

Back to the VP debate ...

[CDB]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

horrible defeat....not quite. anyone who's read the transcripts knows that Kerry did nothing more than "sound good". I.E. If kerry's objective was to go from A---> B he would start at a, make a big elaborate twisting and winding u-turn that felt like a rollercoaster, and end right back up where he started, totally avoiding issue B. Bush did horrible, Kerry didn't defeat bush horribly. I dare you to ask anybody what Kerry said or what his plan is, as far as what they took from the debate. I doubt you'll get much from them. Bush was horrid though, I'll give you that. He could have "trashed" Kerry royally on many things that he just left in limbo after short rebuttals to obviously false charges. He screwed up bad.

Back to the VP debate ...

People are calling the VP debate dry. What the **** do they want, Jerry Springer? Should Cheney have hurled a chair at Edwards? That was a debate. Civilized, on point and well done. Even when these guys supposedly got tense with each other they did it civilly. If half the people on this planet would take a hint from these two at least as fa as attitude during their debate goes, the world would be a lot better place.

It's amazing in the last two elections the presidential debates have been seriously ****ed and the VP debates have been damn good. What the hell is that about?

[jarhead]

I thought cheney did awesome. i'm sick of hearing kerry's camps catch phrases with no plan to back them up. edwards kept turning different shades of red throughout the debates. plus the eye blinking was driving me nuts.

[dito]

I think it was a very close debate. But Edwards seemed to pull out in the end.

Why can't Edwards and Cheney be running mates???

[NPursuit]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

EDIT: I take it back about fackcheck.org...it's a liberal POS website that has one story that partially exonerates Haliburton; not only that, but **** Cheney sent people to "factcheck.com" which was non-existant until tonight! After that messup, the website was bought up by left-leaning democrats and redirects people to a George Soros website!! WTF? Cheney's supposed to be a genius and he does this ****....grrrr.

I thought Edwards sent them to factcheck.com not Cheney. Edwards did screw it up because it was suppose to be factcheck.org. I thought Cheney did a great job last night. I actually enjoyed last night's debate more than the presidential debate. Maybe Cheney should start speaking for Bush.

[goldylight]

Originally Posted by NPursuit

I thought Edwards sent them to factcheck.com not Cheney. Edwards did screw it up because it was suppose to be factcheck.org. I thought Cheney did a great job last night. I actually enjoyed last night's debate more than the presidential debate. Maybe Cheney should start speaking for Bush.

I enjoyed last nights debate more that the frist presidential debate also. Edwards sounded like an idiot. cheney kicked his ass.

[houseman]

Originally Posted by jarhead

I thought cheney did awesome. i'm sick of hearing kerry's camps catch phrases with no plan to back them up.

And Bush is different.... how?

Catch phrases:

Flip Flop
Waffling


What people fail recognize is that when people say Kerry didn't support this or didn't suppoert that or that he flip flopped his position they're not looking at the Bill that was being passed as to the reason WHY he might have changed positions. Instead, Republicans tell half the truth and only report what he did instead of the reasons behind it which in my opinion have been fairly consistent.

The problem here is the person in charge of Kerry's campaign is a ****ing tool. They should have fought back with aggressive ads to explain and refute Bush's myths.

Now... if you want to talk about Flip Flo pand Waffling... lets talk about it.

Bush before the State of the Union in 2003:

Iraq has WMD's and is a threat to US national security.

Bush during and after the State of the Union in 2003:

Iraqi people have been opressed and imprissioned by an evil dictator. They deserve to be free from his man. Blah blah blah.


Bush code name for the Iraq War:

Operation Iraqi Freedom


Now, here's a man who went to war or started the wheels in motion based on the premise of WMD's and National Security then in his State of the Union brought into play something that was NEVER part of his plan: freeing the Iraqi people.

My guess is that Bush knew of the false intelligence prior to the State of the Union which is WHY he brought in the concept of freeing the Iraqi people.

So which is it? WMD's and National Security or Freeing the Iraqi people?

Talk about a flip flop. And a big one at that... 200 billion and thousands of lives lost.


Flame away

[CDB]

Originally Posted by houseman

And Bush is different.... how?
Catch phrases:
Flip Flop
Waffling

He tends to be more consistent, and has offerred up plenty of examples of Kerry's flip flops. Some further Kerry quotes:

"...even knowing what we now know... I would have voted for the authority, [to invade Iraq]" - "I believe it was the right authority for the president to have." - John Kerry August 9, 2004

"We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today." - John Kerry September 29, 2004
"It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -John Kerry, March 3, 2003

"It was a mistake to do what he did..." - John Kerry September 29, 2004 - on Good Morning America regarding the Iraq war.

What people fail recognize is that when people say Kerry didn't support this or didn't suppoert that or that he flip flopped his position they're not looking at the Bill that was being passed as to the reason WHY he might have changed positions. Instead, Republicans tell half the truth and only report what he did instead of the reasons behind it which in my opinion have been fairly consistent.

He's got a right to change his mind, but consistent he's not been. As for his reasons, I've yet to hear him explain them in any coherent manner.

Bush before the State of the Union in 2003:

Iraq has WMD's and is a threat to US national security.

Bush during and after the State of the Union in 2003:

Iraqi people have been opressed and imprissioned by an evil dictator. They deserve to be free from his man. Blah blah blah.

Where's the contradiction there?

Bush code name for the Iraq War:

Operation Iraqi Freedom


Now, here's a man who went to war or started the wheels in motion based on the premise of WMD's and National Security then in his State of the Union brought into play something that was NEVER part of his plan: freeing the Iraqi people.

IT's kind of a default that they'd be freed. I'm not a fan of war as I've said before, but do you honestly think we were just gonna go in and if the troops found no WMDs, Bush would have said, "Just checkin'" and pulled out, leaving Saddam in power. There were a myriad of reasons for going into I raq offerred, some more sound than others especially in hindsight. When it was found the WMD threat wasn't big it was appropriate to change the focus of the action.

My guess is that Bush knew of the false intelligence prior to the State of the Union which is WHY he brought in the concept of freeing the Iraqi people.
So which is it? WMD's and National Security or Freeing the Iraqi people?
Talk about a flip flop. And a big one at that... 200 billion and thousands of lives lost.
Flame away

The 200 Billion figure is off, that's what's authjorized, plus I believe it's what's authorized across Afghanistan and Iraq, but it hasn't been spent yet. Thousands of lives lost, and how many before that under sanctions, maintaining the no fly zone, in Kosovo... All recent presidents are open to criticism regarding questionable use of the military, especially Clinton. Compare the ratio of civilians to soldiers killed in Iraq under Clinton and Bush, see who's doing better.

As for Bush kowingly going to war under false pretenses, that's pretty paranoid, and I see no evidence to back it up anywhere. There was more or less agreement on the WMD issue, but a lot of disagreement on what kind of action it required, mostly because of a lack of evidence of ties between Iraq and Al Qeda which goes directly to the Clear and Present Danger standard. I do see some evidence however to support the conspiracy freaks who think France, Russia and China might have had other motives to oppose US action in Iraq than a devotion ot peace.

[DieTrying]

I felt it was a great debate with the win clearly going to Cheney. I agree that it was a fun and interesting debate to watch. As a republican, I am glad that finally we are starting to bring out some info about Kerry and Edwards' political history and voting records. People think that Kerry is a new guy off the street, but he has 30+ of voting down defense bills. I liked how Edwards changed his tone to sound like a badass every time he said "we will hunt down and kill terrorists." He can say what he wants, but I don't buy that somebody can change their belief system after voting a certain way for 30 years!

I want to ask you guys a question. What would happen if you guys were supposed to show up for 36 meetings at your workplace and only showed up 3 times?

[Jeff]

mmmmmm oil-for-fooooooood mmmmmmmmm

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by DieTrying

I felt it was a great debate with the win clearly going to Cheney. I agree that it was a fun and interesting debate to watch. As a republican, I am glad that finally we are starting to bring out some info about Kerry and Edwards' political history and voting records. People think that Kerry is a new guy off the street, but he has 30+ of voting down defense bills. I liked how Edwards changed his tone to sound like a badass every time he said "we will hunt down and kill terrorists." He can say what he wants, but I don't buy that somebody can change their belief system after voting a certain way for 30 years!

I want to ask you guys a question. What would happen if you guys were supposed to show up for 36 meetings at your workplace and only showed up 3 times?

Shit, where I work they make them part of the management team

[MarcusG]

Originally Posted by size

Halliburton discussion is very odd. The reason being that Halliburton is one of the few companies in the world that does what it does. In addition, Halliburton is the best at what it does.

Size, could you please elaborate. I always thought that Halliburton at least in recent years have been mired in controversy.