Vice-Presidential Debate

[EnchantedSLN]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

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!!!

[sara1998]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

MEEEEEE - make a double entendre!!!!!

bwaahaaaa!!!!! LMAO!!!!!

[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.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

And Meals On Wheels.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.........

[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/....ap/index.html

[dissention]

Originally Posted by 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.........

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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

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]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

[sparky]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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

Right on, Brotha !