Vice-Presidential Debate

[Patti]

What do you all think will happen tonight? It should be interesting.

[DrummerDeanna]

What do you all think will happen tonight? It should be interesting.

I really can't say - I've never actually watched a vice-presidential debate...but tonight's I have to work - so I'll be listening to it for sure....

I'm really looking forward to it....Cheney frightens me - but Edwards...he's reminds of an insurance/used car salesman...I think it's his smile....

[DeeGeMe]

I'm watching--armed with a notepad like I used in the Pres. debate--so I can copy down my talking points I want to use when I e-mail the media and let them know how I felt about the debates.

I think Edwards is going to do far better than the media is giving him credit for. Remember-Cheney has huge, huge negatives in the polls. The people want someone they can like and Edwards is that person.

And he was a trial attorney known for his ability to sway juries. One lawyer who had to argue against him said that he's deceptively smart and very, very charming and that you were roadkill before you ever knew what hit you. That's the Edwards I'm looking to see in tonight's debate.

[strandinthewind]

I think Cheney will absolutly lose his temper. Edwards is a very smooth trial lawyer who is known for going for the jugular while smiling. Cheney, on the other hand, is rumored to have a famously bad temper, especially when confronted. Edwards will most definitely confront him about:

Halliburton

no bid contract
severance pay

Iraq

Cheney said they "knew" where the WMD were, etc.

Oil

the private meetings

Those are just three HUGe ones. I think Cheney will come off as the cold, smug elitist he is and Edwards will come off as warm, which I think he is.

But, only time will tell!!!!!!

:cool:

[Moony]

Edwards is going to smoke him in the debate.

Maybe Cheney will have another heart attack?

One can dream. :woohoo:

----------
oh my god, strand. I've been wondering who the hell those two people were in your avatar - just dawned on me. For a while, I thought one of them was you. LMAO :lol:

[Nixxxed]

Maybe Cheney will have another heart attack?

:laugh: :lol:

I was just thinking the same thing. Edwards should come out for the handshake, and instead of shaking hands he should raise his arms and make a monster face and scream, "BOO!!!".

*THUD* Debate over. Edwards wins.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I think they will both do ok, but I think Edwards will "win." He is very persuasive...he is more liked than Cheney..Kerry and Edwards are floating on high momentum from the last debate, that closed Bush's winning gap in the poll, and even put Kerry ahead of Bush in a couple of polls...

Chris

[hayley]

Cheney's going to blow his stack, and Edwards is going to come off as even more likeable than he already does.

It'll be AWESOME! (in my Justin Timberlake doing Ashton Kutcher voice)

[gldstwmn]

Edwards and his postive, uplifting style will magnify Cheney's distant personality. People can't get into that. And they should pay close attention because THIS IS OUR REAL PRESIDENT.
They will be sitting down this evening, which is a bit odd. I'll say "the sneer" makes an appearance in the first ten minutes. After that, it's a free for all. Woohoo. This is must see tv. :woohoo:

[Patti]

You guys really think Cheney will blow his stack? Hmmm, that will be interesting to see. I heard that they negotiated that the candidates will be seated. This is supposed to be a disadvantage for Edwards because he likes to roam, a la Clinton.

[strandinthewind]

While I would not wish a heart attack on anyone, it is possible given the mostly substantiated rumors I hear about Cheney's temper. But, Cheney is a prof. politician - so maybe he will not blow his stack. In the end it will not matter because the very likeable son of a mill worker will be seen as going against the smug and elitist Cheney.

Again, we will know in about six hours how it came down :laugh:

[GypsySorcerer]

I remember enjoying Lieberman/Cheney much more than the Gore/Bush debates. Of course, Edwards will seem more likeable, polished, etc. But Cheney is more capable of debate than Bush, so it should be good. I wonder how many times we'll hear Halliburton and frivilous lawsuits. :laugh:

[EnchantedSLN]

Here are links to some of the major sites that will have post-debate polls:

* CNN: http://www.cnn.com/
* MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
* Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/
* LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/
* Akron Beacon-Journal: http://www.ohio.com/
* Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune: http://www.startribune.com/
* Orlando Sentinel: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/
* Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/
* South Florida Sun-Sentinel: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/

If any of you are inclined to write letters, you can type your zip code in here (http://democrats.org/action/200409300001.html) to bring up a list of local publications.

[gldstwmn]

Cheney is lying his ass off.

[strandinthewind]

Cheney is lying his ass off.

I can't watch it - it would piss me off too much, plus, Laine needed a walk :cool:

[GypsySorcerer]

This is hilarious! I wouldn't want to meet Cheney in a dark alley..... But that Howie Dean comment was priceless. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

I can't watch it - it would piss me off too much, plus, Laine needed a walk :cool:

Oh, I'm furious. JE just brought up Haliburton. Dick said "Uh" and then commented on the Johns voting record. Dirty, dirty scumbag. Or in the words of Elton John "Dirty, vile pigs!" :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

This is hilarious! I wouldn't want to meet Cheney in a dark alley..... But that Howie Dean comment was priceless. :laugh:


That was sleazy of him.

[GypsySorcerer]

That was sleazy of him.

No, it was true. ;)

[gldstwmn]

No, it was true. ;)

Hey. Give him that. We've only sustained 50% of the casualties right?

[DrummerDeanna]

This is definitely more entertaining than the pres. debate last week :eek:

[gldstwmn]

Voted against Head Start and freeing Nelson Mandela? Ouch. You got served there, Dick.

[GypsySorcerer]

Hey. Give him that. We've only sustained 50% of the casualties right?

Touche. I'm flipping around though; they've already lost my interest.

[gldstwmn]

This moderator is horrid.

[gldstwmn]

Touche. I'm flipping around though; they've already lost my interest.

Good for you. Cheney has laid a great big steaming turd of lies on the stage. It ain't pretty. :lol:

[ontheEdgeof17]

JE did a good job talking about how Bush flipped-flopped as well. :thumbsup:

[sparky]

Some barbed comments, but they both seem very cool and calm. Dullsville.

[diamondsnake]

Edwards came off as a jerk and I didn't know what to think of Chaney when he refused to talk about Same Sex relationships and just thanked Edwards for his "Kind words" about his daughter. That whole thing seemed odd. Was Edwards trying to push Chaney's buttons by going on and on about the fact that Chaney's daughter is gay?

And while we are on the topic Edwards says that marriage is between a man and a woman but same sex relationships should have benefits like visitation rights in the hospital and money when a person dies. Okay, so what is the difference between those benefits and the benefits a married couple gets? Isn't a marriage just a relationship with a few legal benefits? So basically, they just don't want to call it a marriage they want to find a new name for unions between two men or two women? So, was that a way for him to please people on both sides of this topic? I didn't really understand what he beleived.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I dont think there was a huge CLEAR winner tonight, like there was last Tuesday...but I do think Edwards was more clear and consistent on the points..Cheney avoided many topics like Halliburton, and same sex marriages...

He even opted out of responding TWO times to Sen. Edwards when he was offered a 30 sec. response...he had nothing to say...He has more statistics and numbers than Bush, but this makes me even more excited for the big one this Friday..the town hall style debate..very exciting.. I'm sure Bush will step it up due to his poor performance in the last one--I'm sure Kerry knows that and is preparing well too

Chris

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Okay, so what is the difference between those benefits and the benefits a married couple gets? Isn't a marriage just a relationship with a few legal benefits? So basically, they just don't want to call it a marriage they want to find a new name for unions between two men or two women? So, was that a way for him to please people on both sides of this topic? I didn't really understand what he beleived.

What I got from it, based on Edwards' comments tonight and previously is they PERSONALLY both believe, based on their own morals--whatever, that marriage should be between a man and a woman...although they do not believe in it, they wont stand in the way of it. They wont sign constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage, like Bush has agreed to do...Edwards made that clear tonight---they might personally disagree with gay marriage, but are for giving gays rights, the same rights as married couples..

Although I do not believe, throughout this entire campaign that Kerry/Edwards have been exactly FOR same sex marriage legalization---they have always stayed on the stance of UNIONS, instead-- It was interesting Cheney said they think it should be a States issue, and that is precisely the stance Kerry/Edwards have taken throughout the campaign--and Bush has been opposed to that...all of a sudden tonight they are for it?

Chris

[GypsySorcerer]

I dont think there was a huge CLEAR winner tonight, like there was last Tuesday...but I do think Edwards was more clear and consistent on the points..Cheney avoided many topics like Halliburton, and same sex marriages..
Chris

I think it was a draw, too. I believe Cheney didn't answer the question about same sex marriage because he approves of it. I think he disagrees with Bush's policy, and therefore, kept his mouth shut.

[strandinthewind]

I think it was a draw, too. I believe Cheney didn't answer the question about same sex marriage because he approves of it. I think he disagrees with Bush's policy, and therefore, kept his mouth shut.

But there is the rub - he has no class and no spine.

[GypsySorcerer]

But there is the rub - he has no class and no spine.

I wasn't saying it was right....I think he should grow balls and stand up for what he believes in. That was just my take on what happened.

[sparky]

\
It was interesting Cheney said they think it should be a States issue


This is a pretty consistent Republican stance...make things issues for the States unless the Feds disagree with them. Then, they swoop in and trump the state's decisions.
:nod:

[strandinthewind]

I wasn't saying it was right....I think he should grow balls and stand up for what he believes in. That was just my take on what happened.

:eek: :sorry: - I was commenting on Cheney responses - not on your post, even though I quoted it because it referred to them :sorry:

I just love how he called Halliburton's $7.5 billion along with a fraud investigation a non-issue and then essentially refused to discuss it anymore - he is slime.

[GypsySorcerer]

:eek: :sorry: - I was commenting on Cheney responses - not on your post, even though I quoted it because it referred to them :sorry:

I just love how he called Halliburton's $7.5 billion along with a fraud investigation a non-issue and then essentially refused to discuss it anymore - he is slime.

Sorry. Maybe Cheney is rubbing off on me and I'm getting cranky. :lol:

[strandinthewind]

This is a pretty consistent Republican stance...make things issues for the States unless the Feds disagree with them. Then, they swoop in and trump the state's decisions.
:nod:

Yep - that is why the state's rights argument is B.S. and anyone with a brain knows it. How can there be equal protection under the law when all Mass. married couples cannot have their marriages recognized as valid in the other 49 states. Better yet, let's let states ban any kind of marriages they want, black and white, etc. :mad: The whole thing is a vomitorium of hatred egged on by the bottom feeding Bible thumping with one hand and money collecting with the other religious far right. I sincerely pray for their souls because they are filling their churches and coffers by preaching hate and that hatred spills into violence. They honestly think gay people are the cause of the problems of the world and they only picked gay people because they can no longer pick on colored people. I think God is appalled.

[strandinthewind]

Sorry. Maybe Cheney is rubbing off and me and I'm getting cranky. :lol:

Nah - I just did not want you to think I was pouncing on you :laugh: :laugh:

[GypsySorcerer]

Nah - I just did not want you to think I was pouncing on you :laugh: :laugh:

Watch it there....a girl could take that the wrong way. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Watch it there....a girl could take that the wrong way. ;)

MEEEEEE - make a double entendre!!!!! :] :] :] :] :] :]

[sparky]

Sorry. Maybe Cheney is rubbing off on me and I'm getting cranky. :lol:


I would be beyond cranky if Cheney rubbed off on me. I think I'd be litigating.
After I puked.
:eek:

[Nixxxed]

Watching Chris Matthew ... he's just played a tape from "Meet the Press" where Cheney said IRAQ was the center of the war on terror, and that's why the US invaded. In the debate, Cheney said he had never, ever said that or even insinuated it. :confused:

Matthews is now grilling someone Republican about it. I don't particularly like Matthews, but he's earning his salary tonight. Great stuff!

Also, they played a clip where John Edwards said Mrs. Edwards (sorry, suddenly can't think of her name...) reminded Dick Cheney on the stage after the debate that Cheney had actually met Edwards twice, even sat next to him at one function. In the debate, Cheney didn't answer a question about Halliburton to instead say in front of the cameras that the first time he met Edwards was when they shook hands prior to sitting down... :]

[DeeGeMe]

A few facts:

1) Cheney has met Edwards. More than once. Try for starters, at a 2-01-2001 Prayer Breakfast. There's photographic proof of this one out there, people. And Elizabeth Edwards sweetly reminded Mr. Cheney of the fact that he had met her husband on more than one occasion tonight at the end of the debate when she took to the stage. I got to hear it on C-Span. (Elizabeth ROCKS)!

2) Cheney has absolutely said that Saddam Hussein was directly tied to 9-11 and he's said it more than once.

3) He also said that going to www.factcheck.com would clear him of his involvement of Halliburton and of any wrongdoing on their part. Uhm--I think he meant www.factcheck.org, but I bet George Soros thanks him for going to that website because it's attacks BushCo!

So--my question is this--if Cheney can't even get the simplest of facts right, is it any wonder that we're in the mess that we're in?

And one more thing-this is the most lying bunch of bastards I've ever seen in my life. They'll lie over little things--they'll lie over huge things-mostly, they just like lying.

[heyjupiter678]

Also, they played a clip where John Edwards said Mrs. Edwards (sorry, suddenly can't think of her name...) reminded Dick Cheney on the stage after the debate that Cheney had actually met Edwards twice, even sat next to him at one function.
:nod: Check out this pic:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/Cheney-Edwards.jpg


In the debate, Cheney didn't answer a question about Halliburton to instead say in front of the cameras that the first time he met Edwards was when they shook hands prior to sitting down...
After Edwards brought up Halliburton, Cheney said that if people wanted the facts, they should go to factcheck.com . . . which is actually an anti-Bush site. :laugh: He meant factcheck.org. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

A few facts:

1) Cheney has met Edwards. More than once. Try for starters, at a 2-01-2001 Prayer Breakfast. There's photographic proof of this one out there, people. And Elizabeth Edwards sweetly reminded Mr. Cheney of the fact that he had met her husband on more than one occasion tonight at the end of the debate when she took to the stage. I got to hear it on C-Span. (Elizabeth ROCKS)!

2) Cheney has absolutely said that Saddam Hussein was directly tied to 9-11 and he's said it more than once.

3) He also said that going to www.factcheck.com would clear him of his involvement of Halliburton and of any wrongdoing on their part. Uhm--I think he meant www.factcheck.org, but I bet George Soros thanks him for going to that website because it's attacks BushCo!

So--my question is this--if Cheney can't even get the simplest of facts right, is it any wonder that we're in the mess that we're in?

And one more thing-this is the most lying bunch of bastards I've ever seen in my life. They'll lie over little things--they'll lie over huge things-mostly, they just like lying.

I truly think it is because Americans in general think all Muslims are out to kill them. I cannot tell you how many people I have heard say SH was resp. for 9/11 no matter what the facts, which they know, say. They just refuse to believe it. I think that is how W and crewe get away with it. Rove knows the majority of people, esp. after 9/11, would be happy to see all Muslims dead. AND - while many, many people actually care about the economy, which they readily admit W has ruined, W has scared them so much with his War on all emcompassing Terror that they do not dare vote against him for fear of Al-Q and/or SH (which they consider the same) will attack you personally in Smallville, USA. I think these are general points, but IMO they are sadly true.

[EnchantedSLN]

3) He also said that going to www.factcheck.com would clear him of his involvement of Halliburton and of any wrongdoing on their part. Uhm--I think he meant www.factcheck.org, but I bet George Soros thanks him for going to that website because it's attacks BushCo!

I know, that was priceless!!! :laugh:

[sara1998]

MEEEEEE - make a double entendre!!!!! :] :] :] :] :] :]

bwaahaaaa!!!!! LMAO!!!!! :laugh:

[dissention]

I think it was a draw, but I think Edwards had a much better style and was more consistent and clear; he didn't pussyfoot and tell such blatant lies as Cheney. Anyone notice that Cheney said to go to FactCheck.com instead of FactCheck.org? He gave us a gift, folks, and the bow couldn't be any prettier!

Edwards came across as the more personable person and Shrub needs to take his cues from him if he wants to come across as the down-home kinda guy he likes to say he is. Cheney was cold and had a tendency to mumble a bit and look down while he spoke. And it was priceless when Gwen Iffles told him he had only 30 seconds. :laugh:

[dissention]

Voted against Head Start and freeing Nelson Mandela? Ouch. You got served there, Dick.

And Meals On Wheels.

[dissention]

This moderator is horrid.

You thought so? Her questions were better than Leher's by leaps and bounds and she really stuck it to both of them; I almost choked when she slammed Cheney on the air. She was a good moderator, in my eyes. And she's better than Charles Gibson any day of the week.

[dissention]

Edwards came off as a jerk and I didn't know what to think of Chaney when he refused to talk about Same Sex relationships and just thanked Edwards for his "Kind words" about his daughter. That whole thing seemed odd. Was Edwards trying to push Chaney's buttons by going on and on about the fact that Chaney's daughter is gay?

Push buttons? No, it's common knowledge that Cheney's daughter is gay and that Cheney and his wife (who used to write lesbian sex novels) don't agree with Bush's amendment to ban gay marriage. I think Edwards was trying to get at the fact that Cheney supports this guy and is his number one cheerleader even though they disagree on such big issues. Cheney has no spine.

And if Edwards came off bad enough for you to support Bush, I'm shocked. You've said you don't like Bush one bit, then you contradict it. Who do you support? I'm curious.

[GypsySorcerer]

I think Cheney did well enough to stop the bleeding from last week, but it will be interesting to see what Bush does after his dismal showing at the first debate. Cheney was harsh and cranky, Edwards had this goofy expression on his face. (IMO) Not really much else to say......... :shrug:

[GypsySorcerer]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat John Edwards and Vice President Dick Cheney stretched the findings of U.S. intelligence to their own ends Tuesday night in tangling over Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to al Qaeda.

Edwards said the connection between Saddam and the terrorist network was minimal or nonexistent; Cheney asserted Saddam's Iraq "had an established relationship with al Qaeda."

Both statements mask what intelligence sources have said. The contacts were limited and sketchy, mostly Iraqi intelligence agents and al Qaeda operatives, and did not amount to state sponsorship of al Qaeda or any link to the September 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence officials have said.

But the recent Senate Intelligence Committee report on flawed Iraqi intelligence did conclude that the CIA reasonably assessed there probably were several contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda throughout the 1990s, although they did not add up to a formal relationship.

The exchange was typical of a night in which each accused the other of mangling facts and traded accusations at a faster pace than in the presidential debate last week.

"More attacks, more problematic facts," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, comparing this debate with the last. She said Edwards and Cheney had more of a chance to challenge each other on distorted claims than President Bush and Democrat John Kerry did, but "still a lot of factual inaccuracies were left standing."

In perhaps the most awkward blooper of the evening, Cheney told Edwards to his face that they had never met before the debate, despite evidence they had.

Edwards' campaign later provided a transcript of a February 2001 prayer breakfast at which Cheney began his remarks by acknowledging the North Carolina senator. The campaign said the two also met when Edwards accompanied the other North Carolina senator, Elizabeth Dole, to her swearing-in ceremony.

Cheney was trying to make the point that Edwards was an absentee senator. "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

At one point, Edwards attacked Cheney for the administration's decision to give billions of dollars in new contracts to the vice president's former company, Halliburton.

But congressional auditors recently reviewed those contracts and concluded U.S. officials met legal guidelines in awarding the business without competition -- in part because Halliburton was the only company capable of doing some of the work.

He also asserted, "They sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed," a comment that might suggest they had no body armor at all, when in fact they did.

Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said 40,000 troops did not have the brand new, improved armor but, "every soldier and Marine on the ground over had body armor."

Cheney accused Kerry of voting for taxes 98 times. That's down from the 350 times wrongly claimed by Republicans, but it's still a stretch. Those 98 votes include times when Kerry voted for lower taxes -- but not as low as Republicans wanted. And times when many procedural votes were cast on a single tax increase or package.

Whatever the relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq over the years, another question touched on by the debaters was whether Saddam's Iraq had anything to do with the September 11 attacks specifically.

There is no evidence of that. The vice president stated flatly that he has never suggested a connection between Iraq and September 11. But he did say in 2003 that if efforts to establish democracy in Iraq succeeded, "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Touching on one of the Democratic ticket's favorite themes, Edwards declared the Bush administration is "for outsourcing jobs," taking out of context comments from Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and a report by a council of economists who advise the president.

Bush and Cheney have not said they support the practice of U.S. companies sending jobs from the United States to cheaper labor in other countries. The Council of Economic Advisers said job outsourcing is part of a healthy dynamic in which free trade in return benefits Americans.

And Chao said last month that the concerns about job losses ignore that foreign-owned companies are creating many jobs in the United States at the same time. Chao said employers have eliminated about 300,000 jobs in the United States in favor of cheaper labor elsewhere, but about 9 million Americans currently work for U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies.

Also in the debate:

--Edwards said that while U.S. troops were fighting in Iraq, the Bush administration "lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height of hypocrisy." It's also arguable. When the government faced prospects that increased allowances for the troops would expire as stipulated by Congress, the Pentagon said it would make up any shortfall through incentive pay or similar means.

--Cheney took Kerry out of context in quoting him as saying that he favored a global test before he would deploy U.S. troops to pre-empt an attack on the United States. Kerry said in his debate that he would not cede to anyone the right to move pre-emptively against a threat but that he would do so in a way that proved to Americans and the world that he had taken the action for a legitimate reason.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/debate.fact.check.ap/index.html

[dissention]

I think Cheney did well enough to stop the bleeding from last week, but it will be interesting to see what Bush does after his dismal showing at the first debate. Cheney was harsh and cranky, Edwards had this goofy expression on his face. (IMO) Not really much else to say......... :shrug:

I thought Edwards looked like he had just stepped off of the cover of GQ. :laugh: It was rather jarring to see him and then Cheney.

[gldstwmn]

A few facts:

1) Cheney has met Edwards. More than once. Try for starters, at a 2-01-2001 Prayer Breakfast. There's photographic proof of this one out there, people. And Elizabeth Edwards sweetly reminded Mr. Cheney of the fact that he had met her husband on more than one occasion tonight at the end of the debate when she took to the stage. I got to hear it on C-Span. (Elizabeth ROCKS)!

2) Cheney has absolutely said that Saddam Hussein was directly tied to 9-11 and he's said it more than once.

3) He also said that going to www.factcheck.com would clear him of his involvement of Halliburton and of any wrongdoing on their part. Uhm--I think he meant www.factcheck.org, but I bet George Soros thanks him for going to that website because it's attacks BushCo!

So--my question is this--if Cheney can't even get the simplest of facts right, is it any wonder that we're in the mess that we're in?

And one more thing-this is the most lying bunch of bastards I've ever seen in my life. They'll lie over little things--they'll lie over huge things-mostly, they just like lying.

Compulsive liars eventually begin to believe their lies. Great post. :thumbsup:

[gldstwmn]

You thought so? Her questions were better than Leher's by leaps and bounds and she really stuck it to both of them; I almost choked when she slammed Cheney on the air. She was a good moderator, in my eyes. And she's better than Charles Gibson any day of the week.

Asking Cheney if John Edwards was "part of the problem" is not unbiased. She's a friend of Condoleeza Rice.

[dissention]

Asking Cheney if John Edwards was "part of the problem" is not unbiased. She's a friend of Condoleeza Rice.

I know, but she had the same sort of questions for Edwards. I think every moderator in every debate has questions that are going to ruffle feathers, she was no exception and I didn't like a lot of things last night. But I think as a moderator, she did a decent job. Some ****ty questions for both of them, but I just don't think she was horrid. Horrid is having Bill Kristol moderate. :)

[gldstwmn]

Edwards came off as a jerk and I didn't know what to think of Chaney when he refused to talk about Same Sex relationships and just thanked Edwards for his "Kind words" about his daughter. That whole thing seemed odd. Was Edwards trying to push Chaney's buttons by going on and on about the fact that Chaney's daughter is gay?



Edwards was trying to bring light to Cheney's own hipocrisy on the subject. It's disgusting that Cheney would sell out his own daughter for his political ideology. But that pretty much sums up his character.

[strandinthewind]

Edwards was trying to bring light to Cheney's own hipocrisy on the subject. It's disgusting that Cheney would sell out his own daughter for his political ideology. But that pretty much sums up his character.

Plus, when you stand to be worth your father's mostly ill gotten $100's of millions one day, like the lesbian daughter will, you really do not need to worry too much about the everyday plight of the average same sex couple in America. This girl will have never really have to worry too much about putting her partner on her insurance plan, lamenting the fact that her Social Security and other possible retirement(s) will never go to her partner, coughing up the thousands of dollars it could take to create some sort of legal partnership that coveys only about 90% of the rights the Fed. and state Govt.'s automatically convey to heterosexual marriages from the moment of marriage, etc. The only things she really has to worry about are (1) visitation of her partner (if she has one) in the hospital which can mostly be taken care of by a legal document if that document is not contested and (2) her family shutting her partner out of the money upon her death (presuming she had a partner that she wants to inherit her wealth like most spouses do).

So, the full legal effects of marriage for same sex partners will always somewhat escape any actual significant and/or realistic effect on Cheney and his daughter. Meanwhile THOUSANDS of same sex partners across America will never have the same rights automatically convered to every heterosexual marriage (common law or otherwise). That will NEVER be fair in my eyes.

But, then again, I do not shove my religion down the throats of everyone like the idiotic religious zealots who are doing just that with this whole straight people are the only ones EVER allowed to marry because they are more important and how dare you filthy sexual deviants even THINK about encroaching on that right - you freaks of nature - God has damned you and so do we. BUT, please continue to pay you taxes and support us because we care about you, esp. when you are supporting us. MF'ers :mad:

[sparky]

Plus, when you stand to be worth your father's mostly ill gotten $100's of millions one day, like the lesbian daughter will, you really do not need to worry too much about the everyday plight of the average same sex couple in America. This girl will have never really have to worry too much about putting her partner on her insurance plan, lamenting the fact that her Social Security and other possible retirement(s) will never go to her partner, coughing up the thousands of dollars it could take to create some sort of legal partnership that coveys only about 90% of the rights the Fed. and state Govt.'s automatically convey to heterosexual marriages from the moment of marriage, etc. The only things she really has to worry about are (1) visitation of her partner (if she has one) in the hospital which can mostly be taken care of by a legal document if that document is not contested and (2) her family shutting her partner out of the money upon her death (presuming she had a partner that she wants to inherit her wealth like most spouses do).

So, the full legal effects of marriage for same sex partners will always somewhat escape any actual significant and/or realistic effect on Cheney and his daughter. Meanwhile THOUSANDS of same sex partners across America will never have the same rights automatically convered to every heterosexual marriage (common law or otherwise). That will NEVER be fair in my eyes.

But, then again, I do not shove my religion down the throats of everyone like the idiotic religious zealots who are doing just that with this whole straight people are the only ones EVER allowed to marry because they are more important and how dare you filthy sexual deviants even THINK about encroaching on that right - you freaks of nature - God has damned you and so do we. BUT, please continue to pay you taxes and support us because we care about you, esp. when you are supporting us. MF'ers :mad:


Right on, Brotha ! :blob1:

[cliffdweller]

Edwards came off as a jerk and I didn't know what to think of Chaney when he refused to talk about Same Sex relationships and just thanked Edwards for his "Kind words" about his daughter. That whole thing seemed odd. Was Edwards trying to push Chaney's buttons by going on and on about the fact that Chaney's daughter is gay?

And while we are on the topic Edwards says that marriage is between a man and a woman but same sex relationships should have benefits like visitation rights in the hospital and money when a person dies. Okay, so what is the difference between those benefits and the benefits a married couple gets? Isn't a marriage just a relationship with a few legal benefits? So basically, they just don't want to call it a marriage they want to find a new name for unions between two men or two women? So, was that a way for him to please people on both sides of this topic? I didn't really understand what he beleived.

This left a really bad taste in my mouth too. I'm really disapointed that Edwards and Kerry aren't making more of a stand to defend the gay rights ammendment. I cringed when Edwards said, "we believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," ugh, come on, at least Bush has a consistent view on this issue even though it is TOTALLY WRONG.

[dissention]

I'm really disapointed that Edwards and Kerry aren't making more of a stand to defend the gay rights ammendment. I cringed when Edwards said, "we believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," ugh, come on, at least Bush has a consistent view on this issue even though it is TOTALLY WRONG.

I agree. But they are smart in one aspect because if they come out as gay rights champions, they'll surely lose. But I agree with you and I think they're selling out their base.

[sparky]

This left a really bad taste in my mouth too. I'm really disapointed that Edwards and Kerry aren't making more of a stand to defend the gay rights ammendment. I cringed when Edwards said, "we believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," ugh, come on, at least Bush has a consistent view on this issue even though it is TOTALLY WRONG.

They are clearly playing their cards to win...most of the country is against this issue. Of course the view of the current administration is WRONG. But it is not an uncommon view. People are still squeamish and under the mind control of their religious upbringings. Maybe one of these days, the political battles will shift to things that are really important, unlike who the hell is sticking what in whom. I am uncertain, however. Most political and world history is all about dividing and conquering and making sure there are always people who are an underclass. Seems to be human nature. On the other hand, much of Northern Europe, which is not caught in the stranglehold of the Catholic Church, has moved on and can't be bothered with such archaic, fear mongering politics. I wish I knew more about the cultures so I could say definitively why they aren't caught up in this silliness. Alas, I cannot.

[diamondsnake]

And if Edwards came off bad enough for you to support Bush, I'm shocked. You've said you don't like Bush one bit, then you contradict it. Who do you support? I'm curious.

I support Kerry (even though I don't like him... he's the lesser evil I guess). And Edwards didn't come off that bad, but I cringed when he asked the woman what the question was again and then said "Well I'll answer your question even though my opponent talked about education" or something like that. He just seemed sort of full of himself.

[dissention]

I support Kerry (even though I don't like him... he's the lesser evil I guess). And Edwards didn't come off that bad, but I cringed when he asked the woman what the question was again and then said "Well I'll answer your question even though my opponent talked about education" or something like that. He just seemed sort of full of himself.

I think if anyone came off badly, it was the guy who didn't want elderly citizens to get their meals and who wanted Nelson Mandela to rot. :laugh:

[DeeGeMe]

Two things here. This shows you how shrewd Edwards really is. He didn't reply back to Cheney about the "I've never met you before tonight" thing because if he would have, it would have been said and forgotten and the media would have moved on. But by letting the media "discover" that wasn't true, K/E got to control the next day's news cycles as all the networks showed that this was a blatant lie and seemed to take great delight in throwing up the video showing that it was a blatant lie. Crazy like a fox Edwards is!

Okay--point number two. I think that Edwards said the whole thing about the gay daughter because the right has used this gay marriage amendment to beat people over the head and to shore up their right-wing Christian fundie base. I think Edwards was just trying to make sure that these fundies KNEW that Cheney has a gay daughter because there might be a lot out there that don't know that. Not that there's anything wrong with a) being gay or b) having a gay daughter--but I think it was his way of showing 1) what a bunch of hypocrites that these Repugs 2) Backing Cheney up into a corner-which he did--notice Cheney's--no, that's all I have to say on that subject.

[GypsySorcerer]

Two things here. This shows you how shrewd Edwards really is. He didn't reply back to Cheney about the "I've never met you before tonight" thing because if he would have, it would have been said and forgotten and the media would have moved on. But by letting the media "discover" that wasn't true, K/E got to control the next day's news cycles as all the networks showed that this was a blatant lie and seemed to take great delight in throwing up the video showing that it was a blatant lie. Crazy like a fox Edwards is!

Okay--point number two. I think that Edwards said the whole thing about the gay daughter because the right has used this gay marriage amendment to beat people over the head and to shore up their right-wing Christian fundie base. I think Edwards was just trying to make sure that these fundies KNEW that Cheney has a gay daughter because there might be a lot out there that don't know that. Not that there's anything wrong with a) being gay or b) having a gay daughter--but I think it was his way of showing 1) what a bunch of hypocrites that these Repugs 2) Backing Cheney up into a corner-which he did--notice Cheney's--no, that's all I have to say on that subject.

I agree with point #1 and agree partly with #2. :) I think your reasoning is correct as to why Edwards brought up Cheney's daughter; however, Edwards harped on the "it's a states' rights issue" more than Cheney and he repeated that states would not be forced to recognize marriages in other states. I guess he's reaching out to Midwestern swing voters. Both Cheney and Edwards were hypocritical on the subject.

[DeeGeMe]

Edwards did succeed in saying that the Repugs were using this issue as a wedge issue with voters and that the whole idea of using a constitutional amendment is a red herring and explained that no state in the union has to recognize any other state's marriage (although they certainly will if it was a hetrosexual marriage). Yes, I wish the Democrats would have the balls to just flat out say, "If this is what two people wish to do, fine with me." I have never understood the argument that two gays getting married was somehow going to threaten a hetrosexual marriage and the "family". Then again, I don't understand why anyone would want to get married, straight or gay!

[strandinthewind]

Edwards did succeed in saying that the Repugs were using this issue as a wedge issue with voters and that the whole idea of using a constitutional amendment is a red herring and explained that no state in the union has to recognize any other state's marriage (although they certainly will if it was a hetrosexual marriage).

Edwards is talking about the DOMA's lang. that one state need not recognize any marriage outside of one man and one woman. I, and many Constitutional Law people far smarter than I am, think the Sup. Ct. will be almost forced to strike down the DOMA as contrary to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Const. and, perhaps to a much lesser extent, the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Const. In other words, the argument that State A must recognize heterosexual marriage from State B pursuant to Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Const., which means essentially that each state gives "full faith and credit" to a sister state's laws, but not same sex marriage is laughable. But, the vast majority of people see this as an attempt by homosexuals, who they tolerate and perhaps on some level even like despite the religious issues, to infiltrate society and then suddenly become pedophiles (essentially a different sexual orientation that is not limited to homosexuals) and molest little children :rolleyes: Besides, if the Church quits demonizing gay people, who is left to use to fill their coffers :mad: Communism is gone (essentially) and they cannot harp of the sep. but equal stuf anymore. So, gay people it is and shall be until people see through these religious zealots.