NationStates Jolt Archive

Cheney took Edwards to the woodpile on this one.

Edwards....2 years in the Senate, 1/3 of one term

Just does not cut it....and does not qualify him to be President. Hopefully enough people saw Edwards for what he is and we will avoid the trainwreck that will be the Kerry administration.

I would vote for Satan over George Bush! Though even the Dark Lord pales in the evils of Bush...

http://home.arcor.de/wozki/funny/vote_satan.jpg

" I would vote for Satan over Bush"... is the substance of most Kerry supporters... They don't know what he stands for or who he is..and they dont care... He isn't Bush...
In my opinion a very childish an unintelligent way of deciding who will be the leader of the most powerful country in the world.

Bush has made mistakes... he has hjis faults..
Kerry is an undefined quantity.
Kerry is extremely liberal...the "Most" liberal senator in the country..
Bush is very conservative.

I doubt wither would bring about "Armageddon"..
But these bomb throwing left and right wing fanatics give me gas.
They are so full of shit on both ends of the spectrum.

Here's a novel idea.
Lets focus on some solutions to some very real domestic and worldwide problems we face as a nation.. how about we try to work together to figure these things out...

( and from the dummy squad o the right " Kerry will ruin the country")
(and from the dummy squad on the left.. Bush will destroy us)

Nice response guys... and typical.
We get what we deserve as a voting populace.

I would vote for Satan over George Bush! Though even the Dark Lord pales in the evils of Bush...

http://home.arcor.de/wozki/funny/vote_satan.jpg

Two can play that game: http://www.satansrapture.com/kerrysatan.htm

I watched the first ~30mins of it then turned it off.

What i did see of it was that Cheney was the better man up until that point. I thought it was funny how Edwards was shut-down on occasions. And also how he kept going back to Cheney's responses when asked to answer a new question.


But i wasnt surprised how Cheney dodged the rebuttle about Halliburton.

Cheney took Edwards to the woodpile on this one.

Edwards....2 years in the Senate, 1/3 of one term

Just does not cut it....and does not qualify him to be President.
whew, good thing Edwards isn't running for President!

boooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnggggg!

Talk about somthing other than 2 morons making empty promises please, my head hurts too much to take any more political crap. Its all the same. they make empty promises, they become or are already corrupt, they screw the nation over. its the same over here in the UK. Politics are a waste of time. a Binman could be a leader-they are useless.

Well I think Cheney was the overall winner, but Edwards did have his moments. Still find it funny that people might vote for Kerry-Edwards not because they may be the best choice, but because they hate G W Bush. President should be the best choice.

[QUOTE=Biff Pileon]Cheney took Edwards to the woodpile on this one.

Cheney may have won, I hate to say, but (1)he did not take Edwards to the woodpile in the same way that Kerry took Bush to the woodpile last week.

Peanut (as I have affectionately dubbed Cheney) seemed to scowl when Edwards brought up the topic of Haliburton. I do respect and admire Edwards but not so much Kerry.

Polls of undecided voters after the debate declared Edwards the winner by a wide margin.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_el_pr/debate_rdp&cid=694&ncid=716

Perhaps people would rather listen to someone explain how, when they are elected, they won't lie to the people to get in wars, won't get distracted from the war on terror, and will give people benefits even if they have to wrest the money away from corporations and the rich, than the Republican rhetoric thus far of, "We need to do what we did, and do it some more."

In my opinion all the Republican fearmongering ("Kerry will cause terrorist attacks once elected!" "Those liberals will raise your taxes" "They want to pull us out of Iraq!") is coming back to bite them.

Polls of undecided voters after the debate declared Edwards the winner by a wide margin.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_el_pr/debate_rdp&cid=694&ncid=716

Perhaps people would rather listen to someone explain how, when they are elected, they won't lie to the people to get in wars, won't get distracted from the war on terror, and will give people benefits even if they have to wrest the money away from corporations and the rich, than the Republican rhetoric thus far of, "We need to do what we did, and do it some more."

In my opinion all the Republican fearmongering ("Kerry will cause terrorist attacks once elected!" "Those liberals will raise your taxes" "They want to pull us out of Iraq!") is coming back to bite them.

Huh? Was i reading something different? It certainly doesnt say that he won, in fact there is two conflicting results that are reported about in that article.

what's going on here? why is it any of our business?

Kerry is extremely liberal...the "Most" liberal senator in the country..


What..?

what's going on here? why is it any of our business?


Let's hope Halliburton doesn't find oil in your country, because we're coming to get it if GWB/Cheney gets re-elected.

Was Cheney ever in a public office before Bush came along?

whew, good thing Edwards isn't running for President!

He is not qualified to be Vice-President either...one heartbeat away is too close.

He is not qualified to be Vice-President either...one heartbeat away is too close.
He's beyond qualified to be Vice-President, and he'd be a better president than the one we've got now, experienced or not. And the public obviously doesn't agree that Cheney took Edwards to the woodshed, since practically every post-debate poll taken--and no, I'm not talking about the internet joke polls--has Edwards winning or tied. CBS's was the most prominent one I saw last night, and it had Edwards winning 41-28 with 31% calling it a tie. That's 72% who said Edwards at least tied the debate--not exactly a beating.

Add in that Cheney couldn't tell fact from fiction on nearly every foreign policy question and you've got a clear victory for Edwards.

Was Cheney ever in a public office before Bush came along?

Yes. He has worked in Congress and in 3 or 4 presidential administrations and has led this nation (USA) in 3 wars in our history. Did you forget that he was SecDef under Bush 41?

He's beyond qualified to be Vice-President, and he'd be a better president than the one we've got now, experienced or not. And the public obviously doesn't agree that Cheney took Edwards to the woodshed, since practically every post-debate poll taken--and no, I'm not talking about the internet joke polls--has Edwards winning or tied. CBS's was the most prominent one I saw last night, and it had Edwards winning 41-28 with 31% calling it a tie. That's 72% who said Edwards at least tied the debate--not exactly a beating.

Add in that Cheney couldn't tell fact from fiction on nearly every foreign policy question and you've got a clear victory for Edwards.

Thats funny that you think he is qualified....he has not even had the decency to finish ONE Senate term that the people of North Carolina elected him for. He is quite hated there and would not be reelected in any event. I hope Bush is reelected and Edwards is tossed out of the Senate as well. He is a slick lawyer, but no substance at all.

Thats funny that you think he is qualified....he has not even had the decency to finish ONE Senate term that the people of North Carolina elected him for. He is quite hated there and would not be reelected in any event. I hope Bush is reelected and Edwards is tossed out of the Senate as well. He is a slick lawyer, but no substance at all.
It's been made an article of faith that Edwards would not have won if he were to have run again, but considering that the Democrat running to replace him is Erskine Bowles, and that Bowles has held a lead throughout the race, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Bowles doesn't exactly set the world on fire, you know. Fact is, no one knows whether or not Edwards would have won if he'd run for reelection or not, but it's a fun claim to make nonetheless. Utterly without merit, but fun.

Hmmm ...

Vice President ...

Spend 4 (or 8) years in an undisclosed location, out of the public eye, getting twice daily reports on the health of the President and, every now and then, breaking ties in the Senate.

My dog is qualified for that job.

I'd say the VP debate was a dead heat. Cheney was much better on foreign policy while Edwards got the upper hand in domestic policy.

I did notice a couple of things, though:

1] Dick Cheney has absolutely *zero* personality. In 90 minutes, he smiled once .... ONCE! The only facet of any semblance of personality the man may have can be summed up in one word: smug.

2] John Edwards was getting a little childish towards the end. He reminded me of Al Gore. I was very dissapointed. Very.

Ah well .... Kerry still gets my vote .... and for a hell of a lot more reasons than "he's not Bush" ...

It's been made an article of faith that Edwards would not have won if he were to have run again, but considering that the Democrat running to replace him is Erskine Bowles, and that Bowles has held a lead throughout the race, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Bowles doesn't exactly set the world on fire, you know. Fact is, no one knows whether or not Edwards would have won if he'd run for reelection or not, but it's a fun claim to make nonetheless. Utterly without merit, but fun.

Actually Edwards has 4 more years left on his first term as Senator.....he is not up for reelection till 2008 I believe.

In response to the criticism of "both ends of the [political] spectrum," for the life of me I cannot understand middle-of-the-roaders, or worse, the "undecided."

Another word for these moderates might be "uninformed." They are the same people who cheer for new tax cuts and bitch about declining government service. These are the same people who proudly proclaim, "I vote for the man, not the party" as if that is a virtue. They give us split tickets, hoping their Democratic votes will offset their Republican votes. They don't realize that we live in a world of competing ideologies. Or perhaps they do, but unable to make up their minds, they give us political gridlock.

Seventy per cent of Americans cannot name their senators or their congressman. Forty-nine per cent believe that the President has the power to suspend the Constitution. Only about thirty per cent can name an issue when they explain why they voted the way they did, and only a fifth hold consistent opinions on issues over time.

Unfortunately, in this democratic nation, most voters really don’t have meaningful political beliefs.

Give me conviction over apathy (or ignorance) any day.



" I would vote for Satan over Bush"... is the substance of most Kerry supporters... They don't know what he stands for or who he is..and they dont care... He isn't Bush...
In my opinion a very childish an unintelligent way of deciding who will be the leader of the most powerful country in the world.

Bush has made mistakes... he has hjis faults..
Kerry is an undefined quantity.
Kerry is extremely liberal...the "Most" liberal senator in the country..
Bush is very conservative.

I doubt wither would bring about "Armageddon"..
But these bomb throwing left and right wing fanatics give me gas.
They are so full of shit on both ends of the spectrum.

Here's a novel idea.
Lets focus on some solutions to some very real domestic and worldwide problems we face as a nation.. how about we try to work together to figure these things out...

( and from the dummy squad o the right " Kerry will ruin the country")
(and from the dummy squad on the left.. Bush will destroy us)

Nice response guys... and typical.
We get what we deserve as a voting populace.

Cheney looked old and uninteresting, Edwards was vibrant and full of vision. in the first half of the debate Cheney's experience seemed to prevail, however Edwards was more aware, and more precise about his plans for bettering several domestic issues. Cheney was caught in a blatant moral contradiction about Gay marriage which I think was th most interesting part of the debate. People just have to decide A) whether foreign policy or domestic security/stability will decide this election and B) whther they are satisfied with more of the same, or want a new direction.

Cheney took Edwards to the woodpile on this one.

Edwards....2 years in the Senate, 1/3 of one term

Just does not cut it....and does not qualify him to be President. Hopefully enough people saw Edwards for what he is and we will avoid the trainwreck that will be the Kerry administration.

Wow, while I would hardly say that Edwards won a resounding victory, claiming that Cheney took him to the woodpile is a joke. I honestly don't think either candidate came out and scored a touchdown in this one. I think Edwards' aggressiveness regarding Halliburton was a huge move to make, since the claims about Halliburton's business practices resonate with a lot of Americans, and it helped mitigate the fact that Cheney is a more experienced "debater". Both of them were unresponsive to a lot of questions and I thought they both dropped the ball on several occasions when they could've made significant gains.

However, Edwards certainly didn't come across as you obviously wish he would've, because the only poll I've seen (and this answers the claims made about the ABC poll) that polled undecided voters had Cheney losing 41% to 28%. I believe Cheney was the Republican's last hope for salvaging some momentum in these debates (which didn't happen by any of the indicators out to date), and unless Kerry makes a colossal blunder or Dubya somehow learns how to articulate coherent thoughts in English when he doesn't have a teleprompter, the debates are going to be a long, disappointing trek for the Bush campaign.

Actually Edwards has 4 more years left on his first term as Senator.....he is not up for reelection till 2008 I believe.Sorry, but you're mistaken. This year is his sixth in office. Elizabeth Dole was elected to the Senate in 2002, and Bowles is running against a Republican named Burr to replace Edwards. If Edwards' term weren't expiring, there wouldn't be an election to replace him; the governor would fill the seat until there was a special election.

" I would vote for Satan over Bush"... is the substance of most Kerry supporters... They don't know what he stands for or who he is..and they dont care... He isn't Bush...
In my opinion a very childish an unintelligent way of deciding who will be the leader of the most powerful country in the world.

Bush has made mistakes... he has hjis faults..
Kerry is an undefined quantity.
Kerry is extremely liberal...the "Most" liberal senator in the country..
Bush is very conservative.

I doubt wither would bring about "Armageddon"..
But these bomb throwing left and right wing fanatics give me gas.
They are so full of shit on both ends of the spectrum.

Here's a novel idea.
Lets focus on some solutions to some very real domestic and worldwide problems we face as a nation.. how about we try to work together to figure these things out...

( and from the dummy squad o the right " Kerry will ruin the country")
(and from the dummy squad on the left.. Bush will destroy us)

Nice response guys... and typical.
We get what we deserve as a voting populace.
I heard from somewhere (don't remember where) that the "most liberal" claim is only for his 2003 voting record, NOT for his overall 20-year career. Again, a distortion by the Bush campaign. All they say is "he's the most liberal Senator," without saying according to who, or whether they mean in a certain year, or picking and choosing certain years, or over his entire career. Unfortunately FactCheck.org is down now (thanks to good 'ol Cheney mentioning it last night, I'm assuming - I think that'll do him more harm than good), so I'll have to see if i can find a source for this elsewhere.

Cheney took Edwards to the woodpile on this one.

Edwards....2 years in the Senate, 1/3 of one term

Just does not cut it....and does not qualify him to be President. Hopefully enough people saw Edwards for what he is and we will avoid the trainwreck that will be the Kerry administration.


To be fair - I thought that Cheney came across as thoughtfull and articulate, and that he scored some points. But I also think that Edwards got some good shots in too. Noteably things like when Cheney complained about the Kerry's vote against the '84 (?) defence appropriations bill and Edwards called him on the fact that during that same period Cheney was pushing for even deeper cuts to defence spending.

As to Edwards relatively short duration in the Senate - if that ain't enough for you why the hell would you ever have supported GW who had ZERO years in the Senate and ZERO foreign affairs experience? Makes no sense....

To be fair - I thought that Cheney came across as thoughtfull and articulate, and that he scored some points. But I also think that Edwards got some good shots in too. Noteably things like when Cheney complained about the Kerry's vote against the '84 (?) defence appropriations bill and Edwards called him on the fact that during that same period Cheney was pushing for even deeper cuts to defence spending.

As to Edwards relatively short duration in the Senate - if that ain't enough for you why the hell would you ever have supported GW who had ZERO years in the Senate and ZERO foreign affairs experience? Makes no sense....

GW was elected Governor of Texas....twice. That gives him BOTH since as Governor he dealt with Mexico on many levels. Edwards did not even complete 2/3 of his term as Senator. Elected in 1998 he has done NOTHING for those who elected him.

As for the cuts Cheney was calling for....that was in 1991, AFTER the fall of the Soviet Union. Not 1984. It was Kerry who fought Reagan and the military buildup that brought the Soviet Union down. Kerry was way off on that as it turned out.

Read the Rolling Stone article about "The Curse of Dick Cheney" (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6450422?rnd=1094003520950&pageid=rs.Home&has-player=true&pageregion=single7&).

This guy has been a loser all his life. He failed out of Yale. Dodged Vietnam with five draft deferments because he "had other priorities." He worked in the Ford and Bush I White Houses (both one term presidents), and later was CEO for Halliburton, striking lucrative deals with Libya, Iran, and, drum roll please, Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

Dead even tie in my opinion.

Edwards had the Dubya style going on. He just exuded that "you know you wanna like me" aura. And he didn't do too bad on the issues. And Cheney, man... why haven't we seen him talk before? The man covers his bases! He's really got it down! I mean, seriously- why isn't that man President right now?

I know, I know... because he looks like he eats babies. Ah well.

(Staunch liberal here, BTW...)

Read the Rolling Stone article about "The Curse of Dick Cheney" (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6450422?rnd=1094003520950&pageid=rs.Home&has-player=true&pageregion=single7&).

This guy has been a loser all his life. He failed out of Yale. Dodged Vietnam with five draft deferments because he "had other priorities." He worked in the Ford and Bush I White Houses (both one term presidents), and later was CEO for Halliburton, striking lucrative deals with Libya, Iran, and, drum roll please, Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

Yet he is a multi-millionaire. We should all be such a "loser." ;)

Dead even tie in my opinion.

Edwards had the Dubya style going on. He just exuded that "you know you wanna like me" aura. And he didn't do too bad on the issues. And Cheney, man... why haven't we seen him talk before? The man covers his bases! He's really got it down! I mean, seriously- why isn't that man President right now?

I know, I know... because he looks like he eats babies. Ah well.

(Staunch liberal here, BTW...)

Cheney IS sharp. He is vastly more qualified than Edwards to be President. The man does have that "Darth Vader" quality about him though that puts many off, but he does know his stuff.

Cheney took Edwards to the woodpile on this one.

Edwards....2 years in the Senate, 1/3 of one term

Just does not cut it....and does not qualify him to be President. Hopefully enough people saw Edwards for what he is and we will avoid the trainwreck that will be the Kerry administration.
Well this item suggests that your statement...."Cheney took Edwards to the woodpile on this one.", is not entirely accurate and is actually false?

The Democrat was viewed more positively in a poll of 178 undecided voters by CBS News that found more of this crucial group thought he had won, 41 percent, than thought Cheney had won, 28 percent.

Not a bad showing for a "rookie" versus the seasoned veteran?

Well this item suggests that your statement...."Cheney took Edwards to the woodpile on this one.", is not entirely accurate and is actually false?

The Democrat was viewed more positively in a poll of 178 undecided voters by CBS News that found more of this crucial group thought he had won, 41 percent, than thought Cheney had won, 28 percent.

Not a bad showing for a "rookie" versus the seasoned veteran?

Funny that you bring up the CBS poll....the others I have seen go the other way. But with Dan rather holding the key at CBS it is no wonder their numbers come out like they do. ABC has Cheney winning....either way, neither one scored a knockout, but I think Cheney shoed his experience vs. Edwards lack thereof.

GW was elected Governor of Texas....twice. That gives him BOTH since as Governor he dealt with Mexico on many levels. Edwards did not even complete 2/3 of his term as Senator. Elected in 1998 he has done NOTHING for those who elected him.

Um, if Edwards was elected to the Senate in 1998 (which is your claim), and it's 2004 and he's still a Senator (and a Senate term is 6 years long), please tell me how he "did not even complete 2/3 of his term". 2/3 * 6 years would be 4 years...

Cheney IS sharp. He is vastly more qualified than Edwards to be President. The man does have that "Darth Vader" quality about him though that puts many off, but he does know his stuff.

What I'm saying is he's vastly more qualified to be president than Bush :P If we're gonna have a neo-con in office, can we get a smart neo-con?

Please?

Thats funny that you think he is qualified....he has not even had the decency to finish ONE Senate term that the people of North Carolina elected him for. He is quite hated there and would not be reelected in any event. I hope Bush is reelected and Edwards is tossed out of the Senate as well. He is a slick lawyer, but no substance at all.
Can you back up your statement?

"He is quite hated there and would not be reelected in any event."

To be fair - I thought that Cheney came across as thoughtfull and articulate, and that he scored some points. But I also think that Edwards got some good shots in too. Noteably things like when Cheney complained about the Kerry's vote against the '84 (?) defence appropriations bill and Edwards called him on the fact that during that same period Cheney was pushing for even deeper cuts to defence spending.

You are right on both counts actually. Both sides got good shots in but in the end, Cheney won this debate if only by a small margin.

As to Edwards relatively short duration in the Senate - if that ain't enough for you why the hell would you ever have supported GW who had ZERO years in the Senate and ZERO foreign affairs experience? Makes no sense....

Forgot one thing Zeppi! Bush was Governor in the state of Texas and had to deal with Mexico so he does have foreign affairs experience.

Um, if Edwards was elected to the Senate in 1998 (which is your claim), and it's 2004 and he's still a Senator (and a Senate term is 6 years long), please tell me how he "did not even complete 2/3 of his term". 2/3 * 6 years would be 4 years...

Because he started his campaign in 2002 and has been absent from the Senate pretty much since then. He is known in his home state as "Senator Gone."

Well this item suggests that your statement...."Cheney took Edwards to the woodpile on this one.", is not entirely accurate and is actually false?

The Democrat was viewed more positively in a poll of 178 undecided voters by CBS News that found more of this crucial group thought he had won, 41 percent, than thought Cheney had won, 28 percent.

Not a bad showing for a "rookie" versus the seasoned veteran?

And yet according to ABC, yes ABC, their people are saying that Cheney won the debate.

Can you back up your statement?

"He is quite hated there and would not be reelected in any event."

Look at "The Raleigh News & Observer." He is blasted almost daily because he did NOTHING that he promised the people of North Carolina that he would do.

"Senator Gone" is his nickname there.....

Funny that you bring up the CBS poll....the others I have seen go the other way. But with Dan rather holding the key at CBS it is no wonder their numbers come out like they do. ABC has Cheney winning....either way, neither one scored a knockout, but I think Cheney shoed his experience vs. Edwards lack thereof.
You want to blame the results on Dan Rather? How incredible a statement is that?

Present statement of yours:

"either way, neither one scored a knockout"

Earlier statement of yours:

"Cheney took Edwards to the woodpile on this one."

Are you starting to come around now and realize that your first statement wasn't accurate?

Can you back up your statement?

"He is quite hated there and would not be reelected in any event."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/vp_debate_poll_041006.html

Read it and weep CH!

GW was elected Governor of Texas....twice. That gives him BOTH since as Governor he dealt with Mexico on many levels. Edwards did not even complete 2/3 of his term as Senator. Elected in 1998 he has done NOTHING for those who elected him.

As for the cuts Cheney was calling for....that was in 1991, AFTER the fall of the Soviet Union. Not 1984. It was Kerry who fought Reagan and the military buildup that brought the Soviet Union down. Kerry was way off on that as it turned out.


Oh yes... governor of Texas is WAY better than being on the Senate Intelligence Committee... ;)

And - ummmm - while you are correct that Cheney was most against defence spending in the 90's .... when he was the Secretary of Defence....I guess you forgot THIS little quote:

If President Reagan "doesn't really cut defense, he becomes the No. 1 special pleader in town…The president has to reach out and take a whack at everything to be credible [meaning] you've got to hit defense."
- U.S. Rep. Dick Cheney, 12/16/84

You want to blame the results on Dan Rather? How incredible a statement is that?

Present statement of yours:

"either way, neither one scored a knockout"

Earlier statement of yours:

"Cheney took Edwards to the woodpile on this one."

Are you starting to come around now and realize that your first statement wasn't accurate?

Nah, I think Cheney won the debate, for what it's worth. Edwards had nothing new, and Cheney showed us that Edwards is not an experienced or very knowledgeable politician.

Oh yes... governor of Texas is WAY better than being on the Senate Intelligence Committee... ;)

And - ummmm - while you are correct that Cheney was most against defence spending in the 90's .... when he was the Secretary of Defence....I guess you forgot THIS little quote:

If President Reagan "doesn't really cut defense, he becomes the No. 1 special pleader in town…The president has to reach out and take a whack at everything to be credible [meaning] you've got to hit defense."
- U.S. Rep. Dick Cheney, 12/16/84

It does when you don't even show up for the meetings.....

Yes...calling for it and voting for it are two different things. You know that. Kerry VOTED for defense cuts in 1984. How did Cheney vote? I would bet that he voted against the cuts.

GW was elected Governor of Texas....twice. That gives him BOTH since as Governor he dealt with Mexico on many levels. Edwards did not even complete 2/3 of his term as Senator. Elected in 1998 he has done NOTHING for those who elected him.

In Texas, if a turnip ran on the Republican ticket, it could get elected. Most of rural Texas is notoriously conservative. G. W. Bush being elected as governor in a state that has named a major highway after his father was what is known in golf as a "gimme" - he was elected because he was the President's little boy, not because he's any sort of statesman.

How do I know this? I live in Texas.

Because he started his campaign in 2002 and has been absent from the Senate pretty much since then. He is known in his home state as "Senator Gone."

I've heard of one newspaper calling him Senator Gone. While that may technically meet your definition of "being known", it's hardly a logical next step to say that everyone thinks of him that way.

Additionally, are you saying that once a politician begins campaigning, they no longer are serving in office? So Bush hasn't been serving as president for the past several months? He's not in Washington very much, that's for sure. Or is it okay in his case?

And yet according to ABC, yes ABC, their people are saying that Cheney won the debate.

ABC's poll was a different poll. It was reported as being heavy on Republican-leaning registered voters. The CBS poll was of undecided voters. Additionally, the ABC poll (the one YOU'RE citing) showed that MORE people would vote for Kerry/Edwards after the debate than before it. Read the whole thing.

Look at "The Raleigh News & Observer." He is blasted almost daily because he did NOTHING that he promised the people of North Carolina that he would do.

"Senator Gone" is his nickname there.....
Well I went to the "The Raleigh News & Observer." and punched in Edwards in a search and came up with the following:

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/eyeonedwards/

Most of the headlines there seem to be quite favourable to Edwards.

Can you relate some stories about Edwards that demonstrate as you suggest that he has done "NOTHING that he promised the people of North Carolina"?

ABC's poll was a different poll. It was reported as being heavy on Republican-leaning registered voters. The CBS poll was of undecided voters. Additionally, the ABC poll (the one YOU'RE citing) showed that MORE people would vote for Kerry/Edwards after the debate than before it. Read the whole thing.

Actually look at the percentage numbers!

Bush: 50%
Kerry 49%
Nader 0%

Still a statistical dead heat but it has Bush by ONE percentage point!

So your statement regarding that MORE would vote for Kerry after the debate is FALSE!

Nah, I think Cheney won the debate, for what it's worth. Edwards had nothing new, and Cheney showed us that Edwards is not an experienced or very knowledgeable politician.
Oh I was just kinda pointing out your "flip flop" in statements. :D

Actually look at the percentage numbers!

Bush: 50%
Kerry 49%
Nader 0%

Still a statistical dead heat but it has Bush by ONE percentage point!

So your statement regarding that MORE would vote for Kerry after the debate is FALSE!

FALSE? Are you sure? Look again (this from the ABC poll that you cite as showing how Cheney won):

Vote Preference Among Debate Viewers
Before the debate After the debate
Bush/Cheney 51% 50
Kerry/Edwards 48 49
Nader/Camejo <.5 0

Hence, since Kerry/Edwards went from 48% before the debate to 49% after the debate, more people would vote for Kerry/Edwards AFTER than BEFORE the debate. So apparently, despite the fact that this poll gives the victory in the debate to Cheney, it still ended up showing an increase in people voting for Kerry/Edwards and a decrease in people voting for Bush/Cheney. See how that works?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/vp_debate_poll_041006.html

Actually look at the percentage numbers!

Bush: 50%
Kerry 49%
Nader 0%

Still a statistical dead heat but it has Bush by ONE percentage point!

So your statement regarding that MORE would vote for Kerry after the debate is FALSE!
Well after the next two presidential debates, it should be interesting to see the numbers, especially when the next debate will center on the failed Bush economy.

At one point, Bush had an 11% lead after the RNC?

Looks like the Kerry steamroller is getting primed at the right time.

i was just reading slate magazine http://slate.msn.com/id/2107809/ and i found this part funny:

QUOTE

One problem with Cheney's rebuttal: He misspoke. He meant to say "factcheck.org.," rather than ".com." George Soros capitalized on Cheney's error, snatched up the URL, and now if you type "factcheck.com" into your browser, you get redirected to a page titled, "Why we must not re-elect President Bush: a personal message from George Soros."

But maybe Cheney was lucky to have misspoken, because there was a larger problem with his response: It isn't true. Well, it is true that factcheck.org provides "specific details with respect to Halliburton," but those details have nothing to do with the charges Edwards made. The Democratic running mate said that Halliburton, while Cheney was CEO, "did business with sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false financial information, it's under investigation for bribing foreign officials." All factcheck.org rebuts is a different charge, that Cheney collected $2 million from Halliburton "as vice president." It turns out that Cheney collected a good chunk of that money as vice president-elect, including nearly $1.5 million on Jan. 18, 2001, two days before his inauguration.


END QUOTE

i thought they both gave rather stiff boring presentations. the morning shows seemed to think it was quite rough and tumble; they must have had a different feed than i did.

what i DIDNT understand was why cheney said NOTHING when edwards said he had voted against head start, meals on wheels and a MLK holiday.

was he thinking "DAMN STRAIGHT I VOTED AGAINST THAT CRAP" or was he thinking "did i do that? wtf is he talking about?" to just leave it like that (well unless he really IS against those things *shudder*) makes him seem kinda creepy (go figure)

I thought Edwards slammed Cheney on a number of points.
He brought up the Haliburton scandals.
He mentioned dividends when talking about taxes. That's one thing the GOP won't do, they won't tell you their numbers are misleading. Payroll taxes are totally different than dividends and the working class pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. Unless you make your living on dividends you're being duped by the GOP on this.
He nailed what's going on in Afghanistan, it's out of control, the Taliban and Al Queda are on the rise again, and the opium production is back to levels we haven't seen for 20 years.
He countered the rosy picture on Iraq...ask an Iraqi in Baghdad what they think about things... http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
There's all this talk about elections and what the troops think and who supports what, but what we don't hear in the US is what the Iraqi people think.
He nailed Cheney on Iran, he went ahead and kept doing business with Iran even though Iran is the #1 sponsor of terror in the world.
AND he nailed his butt on his voting record. The Bush team and especially Cheney keeps talking about the Kerry/Edwards record on defense. We need only look to Cheney's own record as secretary of defense for Bush Sr. and as
Ewards mentioned his record as a representative. It's just pure lies and it's about time someone confronted the vice-president about it. Meals on Wheels?
Go #%(* yoursel

What I want to know is this. Edwards said many times during the debate that "We think we can do better." That plus their whole platform of "help is on the way" causes me to ask if they could do better, why haven't they done so yet as Senators?
Why haven't they gotten together before and proposed legislation to "do better"?
Why haven't they done anything in the Senate to ensure "help is on the way" before now?
Or is it all campaign rhetoric?

What I want to know is this. Edwards said many times during the debate that "We think we can do better." That plus their whole platform of "help is on the way" causes me to ask if they could do better, why haven't they done so yet as Senators?
Why haven't they gotten together before and proposed legislation to "do better"?
Why haven't they done anything in the Senate to ensure "help is on the way" before now?
Or is it all campaign rhetoric?
because the senate doesnt run the war, the administration does.

to have military decisions made by congress would be a nightmare. it takes too long. the administration sets policy and the generals in iraq make most of the day to day decsions.

Forgot one thing Zeppi! Bush was Governor in the state of Texas and had to deal with Mexico so he does have foreign affairs experience.

Actually ... it's the other way around. Texas has a vast hispanic population and at one point was part of Mexico. The culture is so intertwined here that dealing with Mexico isn't foreign ... not even close to it.

because the senate doesnt run the war, the administration does.

to have military decisions made by congress would be a nightmare. it takes too long. the administration sets policy and the generals in iraq make most of the day to day decsions.
He was talking about the war and about domestic issues. Why haven't they done "better" on domestic issues during their terms?

He was talking about the war and about domestic issues. Why haven't they done "better" on domestic issues during their terms?

Well, they have done better, but since you only seem to absorb information from right-wing sources that cherry pick information to make them look bad, you'd have no way of knowing.

For example, every right-winger knows that Kerry voted for tax increases 98 times, but they have no idea the many more times Kerry voted for tax reductions.

Every right-winger knows that Kerry voted against some weapons systems, but fail to note that he voted for many many more, including the biggest defense appropriations bill in history.

and since the usual tactic of the right-wing is to ignore any information that runs counter to their biased notions, I doubt if my post here will make any difference.

My personal thoughts on the debate are this, at first glance with no knowledge or fact checking one could say that Cheney easily won the debate. He certainly came off more knowledgeable on the issues and in my opinion he was the better spoken of the two men.

That being said, I believe the true measure of winning a debate is not who is better spoken but who had the facts on their side. In Kerry/Bush's debate they both made some small inaccurate assertions that didn't amount to much and Kerry did win the debate by a landslide as we all know now.

However this debate was quite a different animal. By my count Edwards made only one factual error and it wasn't even a big one, it's the same one Kerry made. Saying that 200 billion has been spent on the war in Iraq, when in fact it's only been 120, however 200 billion is allocated including next years budget, so it was a very small error.

Now Cheney on the other hand made so many factual errors and basically lied his ass off. "I have never said that Saddam was involved with 9/11" Can you even believe he said that? Haha, a quick look up of "Meet the Press" will prove that whopper of a lie. Or when he said he had never even met Edwards before last night, again it was a lie, he had indeed met Edwards at a social function reported on this morning by "Imus" the list goes on and on..

The bottom line is you don't win a debate if you're making shit up and lying. So, while I do believe Cheney was the better spoken of the two men, for me he loses on the grounds of so many factual errors and what one can only conclude as blatant lies contrived to keep deceiving the American people.

Oh, by the way, if you want sources to my assertions just click my sig ;)

My personal thoughts on the debate are this, at first glance with no knowledge or fact checking one could say that Cheney easily won the debate. He certainly came off more knowledgeable on the issues and in my opinion he was the better spoken of the two men.

Agreed, but that was foreseeable. Cheney is better in the homey, sit-on-my-knee-son, sort of setting they had, whereas Edwards would've been much better with more of a "town hall" style format. The debate was designed to play to Cheney's strengths (did the Kerry negotiators just give up?), and it was his opportunity to seize. Granted, he did seize it, so he can take credit for doing well. But the set up is all so important, too

That being said, I believe the true measure of winning a debate is not who is better spoken but who had the facts on their side. In Kerry/Bush's debate they both made some small inaccurate assertions that didn't amount to much and Kerry did win the debate by a landslide as we all know now.

Which begs two questions: For how long have you believed this (is this just an opportunistic conversion)? And how are you proposing to legitimate something as a "fact" in this election year?

I have found only two types of facts this year: facts from a Kerry supporter, and facts from a Bush supporter. I have found little to no middle ground. To claim one's self as an independent (and thus a true possessor of "facts") one would have to refrain from statements as you make in following.


However this debate was quite a different animal. By my count Edwards made only one factual error and it wasn't even a big one, it's the same one Kerry made. Saying that 200 billion has been spent on the war in Iraq, when in fact it's only been 120, however 200 billion is allocated including next years budget, so it was a very small error.

Granting that it was "small", it still goes to a pattern which is in partisan politics today. It shows the systematic elimination of details and subtlties about issues to produce sound-byted, bumper sticker answers to tough questions. I've always heard criticism that the Bush re-election team uses this, but increasingly (presumably from the Clinton graft-ins), the Kerry team is also a producer misleading advertising. Hm...facts? Hard to find.


Now Cheney on the other hand made so many factual errors and basically lied his ass off. "I have never said that Saddam was involved with 9/11" Can you even believe he said that? Haha, a quick look up of "Meet the Press" will prove that whopper of a lie. Or when he said he had never even met Edwards before last night, again it was a lie, he had indeed met Edwards at a social function reported on this morning by "Imus" the list goes on and on..


I'm curious if you'd like to produce this list...because as someone interested in the facts, your logic seems backwards. You address the conclusion ("Cheney lies his A** off") and only then retrace your steps to produce supporting material. I understand the rhetorical reasons for this. There are long-standing conventions surrounding topic sentences and thesese, etc, but if you're truly looking for who had "facts" on his side, maybe you should try to make less of an effort to convince us of an end and more to show us a means.

The bottom line is you don't win a debate if you're making shit up and lying.

I think that'll be news to debaters through the ages.

So, while I do believe Cheney was the better spoken of the two men, for me he loses on the grounds of so many factual errors and what one can only conclude as blatant lies contrived to keep deceiving the American people.

No, one can conclude whatever one wants. Obviously Chenay and Bush have supporters, and those supporters are going to believe that Cheney told the truth. This, probably for the same reason that you think he lied: Partisanism.

Next time you're going to address an extranational issue with a partisan slant please inform us first. We like to warm up our I.G.N.O.R.E. weaponry before use.

He is not qualified to be Vice-President either...one heartbeat away is too close.

Biff, you're not really suppose to use your puppets to back up arguments in your own thread. Please don't do it again.

Thank You.
Stephanie
Game Moderator

I'm curious if you'd like to produce this list..

Yes I can, simply click my sig! (The link below)

Next time you're going to address an extranational issue with a partisan slant please inform us first. We like to warm up our I.G.N.O.R.E. weaponry before use.

You sorta had me believing you were a fairly moderate person interested in pointing out items of intellectual interest until this point. You admit that all debaters lie and make shit up, but then you seemingly turn your brain off when it comes time to realize that every political debate is partisan to some respect, which is why all of us, at all times, should have our C.R.I.T.I.C.A.L. T.H.I.N.K.I.N.G weaponry warmed up and ready to go.

Next time you're going to address an extranational issue with a partisan slant please inform us first. We like to warm up our I.G.N.O.R.E. weaponry before use.

Very well done.....

Oh, by the way, if you want sources to my assertions just click my sig ;)
Yup, when I'm looking for Non-partisan and "factual" information I look to a website with the conclusion built right in.

I question other things about this.

"#422 - He's Dumb!

#32 - He Sucks at Debates

#504 - Ready, Set, Whore

#481 - He Turns His Allies into Poodles

#508 - Lights, Camera, Bullshit!"

Those hardly sound like reasonable or even respect-worthy points to me.

How is Cheney's (admittedly) good showing in the VP debate a good thing for the Bush re-election. Sure he came across as very knowledgeable in foreign affaris and the workings of the government (as one would expect someone with 40+ yrs experience in govt. to do), but doesn't this just highlight (again) that Bush is simply a puppet leader?
Especially when compared to his disjointed and feeble efforts in the first debate.
Strange how repubs are claiming Cheney's performance as a victory. I see as further evidence of who's really controlling the Whitehouse.

On another note, anyone see Bush's speech today? He's finally admitting the economy's down, but it's none of his fault of course. He also critically attacked Kerry's foreign policy, saying it's not the way to make allies! All I can say to this is WTF?!

You sorta had me believing you were a fairly moderate person interested in pointing out items of intellectual interest until this point. You admit that all debaters lie and make shit up, but then you seemingly turn your brain off when it comes time to realize that every political debate is partisan to some respect, which is why all of us, at all times, should have our C.R.I.T.I.C.A.L. T.H.I.N.K.I.N.G weaponry warmed up and ready to go.

And critical thinking does not include "received knowledge". You know, coming to a decision before examining the facts. That's what Steph seems to be doing to me

I just find it curious, isn't that what people have always blamed Bush for with Iraq...

Anyway. I'm voting chipmunk this year. At least, that way I'll actually enjoy the debates in 2008.

Gonna interject a little humor in this one about the debates (if it's been posted before, please cut me a little slack. I can't hardly read all the threads), but check out The Daily Show's Bush vs. Bush debate.

http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos_corr.jhtml?startIndex=25&p=stewart

Got quite a kick out of it.

Yup, when I'm looking for Non-partisan and "factual" information I look to a website with the conclusion built right in.

Lies and Misrepresentations

Senator Edwards: Yes, Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 commission has said it. Your own secretary of state has said it. And you’ve gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There’s not.

Vice President Cheney: The senator’s got his fact wrong. I have not suggested (http://www.525reasons.com/archives/000764.html#000764) there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Vice President Cheney: It strikes me that that is absolutely the heart of what needs to be done from the standpoint of education. It’s also important as we go forward in the next term we want to be able to take what we’ve done for elementary education and move it into secondary education. It’s working. We’ve seen reports now of a reduction in the achievement gap between majority students and minority students. We’re making significant progress (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001918661_raspberry04.html)

Vice President Cheney: Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight. Turns out this isn't true at all (http://dailykos.com/story/2004/10/5/234647/200) There's even a picture (http://dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/02029/3041)

As I said, the list goes on... (Why not check the links that support the assertions on the website? Or would that defeat the whole purpose of calling it not factual?)

And critical thinking does not include "received knowledge". You know, coming to a decision before examining the facts. That's what Steph seems to be doing to me

I just find it curious, isn't that what people have always blamed Bush for with Iraq...

Anyway. I'm voting chipmunk this year. At least, that way I'll actually enjoy the debates in 2008.

Actually, what I blame Bush for is intentionally cherry-picking information in order to convince Congress and America to go to war with Iraq. It has become clear that the Niger uranium claims and the aluminum tubes arguments were considered seriously flawed intelligence even before Bush used them in his case for war. When even more intelligence poured in that Saddam did not have WMD or active WMD programs, Bush again looked the other way and ordered the inspectors out of Iraq.

This, in my mind, is an impeachable offense, and if Bush were a Democrat, the Republican Congress would have started impeachment proceedings already.

I would also like to point out the "flip flop" done by Cheney on the same-sex union question. In the course of one answer, he basically conceded that Bush was contradicting the core of Republican doctrine (remember the states' right line they always love to push to malign Democrats? Apparently that excludes decisions that have to do with "morality"). Read the transcript that shows how he went from saying he would prefer to let the states do it to saying that he supported the president trying to keep the states from doing it.

Actually ... it's the other way around. Texas has a vast hispanic population and at one point was part of Mexico. The culture is so intertwined here that dealing with Mexico isn't foreign ... not even close to it.

He still had to deal with Mexico Keruvalia which means Foreign Affairs. Yes Texas was part of Mexico until the Texas Revolution which ousted Mexico from their country. Then it was admitted into the Union. It then seceded from the Union along with the rest of the South and is now once again a state in the Union.

Don't start quoting history to me Keruv because I am getting a minor in History and both of my parents are history majors and I'm an amature Military Historian and I read what I can of wars fought on American Soil and the fights we fought in overseas.

So yes, Bush dealt with the President of Mexico so that gained him some foriegn affairs experience.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Yes, it's an online poll, but almost 2 million votes have been placed on it. And it has Edwards winning 59% to 41%. Not such a victory for Cheney eh?

FALSE? Are you sure? Look again (this from the ABC poll that you cite as showing how Cheney won):

Vote Preference Among Debate Viewers
Before the debate After the debate
Bush/Cheney 51% 50
Kerry/Edwards 48 49
Nader/Camejo <.5 0

Hence, since Kerry/Edwards went from 48% before the debate to 49% after the debate, more people would vote for Kerry/Edwards AFTER than BEFORE the debate. So apparently, despite the fact that this poll gives the victory in the debate to Cheney, it still ended up showing an increase in people voting for Kerry/Edwards and a decrease in people voting for Bush/Cheney. See how that works?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/vp_debate_poll_041006.html

*sighs* I will give you this that he went ONE percentage point up. However, 50% of the people polled will vote for Bush over Kerry thus Bush still will have More votes than Kerry. We were both right on this issue. Kerry probably picked up more votes but not enough to turn this election into his favor.

He still had to deal with Mexico Keruvalia which means Foreign Affairs. Yes Texas was part of Mexico until the Texas Revolution which ousted Mexico from their country. Then it was admitted into the Union. It then seceded from the Union along with the rest of the South and is now once again a state in the Union.

Don't start quoting history to me Keruv because I am getting a minor in History and both of my parents are history majors and I'm an amature Military Historian and I read what I can of wars fought on American Soil and the fights we fought in overseas.

So yes, Bush dealt with the President of Mexico so that gained him some foriegn affairs experience.

If you're going to act indignant, I'm gonna request that you admit how wrong you were in your earlier claims (and not just say "we were both right") that I was presenting false information.

Additionally, you're obviously misunderstanding the argument. Texan and Mexican CULTURE (not governmental bodies) are so intertwined that dealing with Mexico doesn't give the governor of Texas "foreign affairs" experience, because Mexico and Texas hardly exhibit the differences that mark most separate countries. Hence, your claim that his experience as governor somehow gave him the necessary tools in foreign affairs to be president is silly. You should stop reacting as if this is a pissing contest and start reading peoples' posts more carefully.

And before you flaunt your historical credentials at me, I lived in Texas for over 15 years and was very politically aware, so you aren't gonna win a "you don't know what the situation is like there" argument.

*sighs* I will give you this that he went ONE percentage point up. However, 50% of the people polled will vote for Bush over Kerry thus Bush still will have More votes than Kerry. We were both right on this issue. Kerry probably picked up more votes but not enough to turn this election into his favor.

You'll "give" it to me? How about you admitting that you misread my post and then got so excited to have supposedly caught me in a misstatement that you went overboard and made yourself look like an ass? You won't have to "give" me anything, because anyone who can read will realize that I was 100% right in my claims.

Well after the next two presidential debates, it should be interesting to see the numbers, especially when the next debate will center on the failed Bush economy.

Ok so I gues a creation 1.7 million jobs doesn't suit you. Yes Bush still has a deficit of joblesses but what did you expect after Corporate Scandals, Terror attacks, a recession, and fighting a war. I don't know about you, but the President really has little power over how the economy can grow. Give it time and Bush will have a surplus of jobs.

At one point, Bush had an 11% lead after the RNC?

And that poll was questionable from the start.

Looks like the Kerry steamroller is getting primed at the right time.

Believe what you will but I don't think these debates will change the outcome any.

Look for GWB to win in 2004.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Yes, it's an online poll, but almost 2 million votes have been placed on it. And it has Edwards winning 59% to 41%. Not such a victory for Cheney eh?

Remember these are snap polls. ABC had Cheney winning it. I will say this. Both sides did quite well in this debate. Did Edwards win? In some eyes yes he did. Even I could say it but I won't because I don't think he did. Did Cheney win? In some eyes yes. I will say he won but not by a whole hell of a lot! Was it a tie? More than likely that is what its going to come down too.

All polls are decided by who watches them and votes online. CBS has an accountability issue right now and is mostly watched by democrats. I'm surprised by the Poll done by ABC but they did say more Republicans watched the debate there than Democrats. MSNBC online poll IS NOT scientific.

As I said, the list goes on... (Why not check the links that support the assertions on the website? Or would that defeat the whole purpose of calling it not factual?)

Look I'm not going to try to prove you "wrong" per se. There's no point in me bringing investigations of a private nature (such as, who I believe) here where everyone will tell me to be just like him.

But I would like to point out that there are only two legitimacies in your hypertext.

1) The picture. Or so it seems. As evidence it seems irrefutable--However, the site on which it was posted is obviously liberal--or, excuse me, anti-bush.

2) The opinion editorial in the Seattle Times. This has the possibility of being legitimate. I mean, you have to check out his facts, too, and take into account that the Seattle Times have endorsed Kerry, but he has the possibility of bringing up legitimate points.

The key here is that, should you be sincerely interested in the facts, all your sources should be legitimate, or you should at least attempt to make it that way. It's like that "525 reasons" site: they may have had some "reasons" that raised legitimate questions and properly cited reliable sources. But, like I pointed out, in the whole of (counting) two minutes of looking at it, I found all those the BS "reasons". And that was without even reading the majority of those I looked at...

Why am I, an American who's interested in finding whether there's truth behind accusations and assertions, turn to such a place where I have to sort out all the crap from the Real information? Why would I waste my time in a place which has the possibility of deceiving me? I mean, this is my American future on the line; I'm not going to entrust it to just anybody. Especially not you, Steph.

I am surprised people think there is a clear victor in this debate. Well not really as the supporters think their boy won.

The debate to me was a draw. There was no clear knockouts from either side.

Both "stretched" some facts.

Edwards came across as young and inexperinced while Cheney came across as experienced but doesn't give a crap about anybody. To me it seemed like he was saying things he didn't belive but he did because he knew he had to....

Cheney seemed to know his stuff and what is sad it makes you wonder who is really running the goverment.....

Cheney took Edwards to the woodpile on this one.

Edwards....2 years in the Senate, 1/3 of one term

Just does not cut it....and does not qualify him to be President. Hopefully enough people saw Edwards for what he is and we will avoid the trainwreck that will be the Kerry administration.




And given Chney may not be alive in 5 years, he is over qualified to be VP, right? It was a draw and Edwards looked far more charismatic than crusty old Cheney.

Actually, what I blame Bush for is intentionally cherry-picking information in order to convince Congress and America to go to war with Iraq.

Doesn't this make all of Congress to blame as well for supporting him and not asking questions? The intelligence errors weren't limited to the US, either.

Why am I, an American who's interested in finding whether there's truth behind accusations and assertions, turn to such a place where I have to sort out all the crap from the Real information? Why would I waste my time in a place which has the possibility of deceiving me? I mean, this is my American future on the line; I'm not going to entrust it to just anybody. Especially not you, Steph.

Can you tell me exactly where you DON'T have to sort out the crap from the real information? Because there's no purely objective source of information. If you're afraid to do that work, then you're not an American who's interested in finding truth.

So yes, Bush dealt with the President of Mexico so that gained him some foriegn affairs experience.

Your resume isn't necessary as it has no relevance to what I said. History has nothing to do with it.

The Mexican culture and the Texan culture are so intertwined that Texans dealing with Mexicans are *not* dealing with anything foreign. Different country, sure, but certainly not foreign in any cultural sense of the word.

Is that no one has pointed out the loser of the debate:
The American People.

Neither candidate, IMHO, won decisively, because it's impossible to do so.
Why?

Because each side has their own wonks that spread their own "Rah Rah" propoganda. And I'm talking about Joe Sixpack here, not just the boys at CBS and Fox News.

I'm so happy that this will end in about 4 weeks.
Then I'll just have to hear about how Berry/Kush fought dirty to win the election.

Doesn't this make all of Congress to blame as well for supporting him and not asking questions? The intelligence errors weren't limited to the US, either.

Ah, so you admit that Bush lied to Congress.

Yes, I hold Congress accountable for not digging deeper and finding more independent intelligenge, but while their mistake is regrettable, it is in no way comparable to lying in order to move a country into war.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Yes, it's an online poll, but almost 2 million votes have been placed on it. And it has Edwards winning 59% to 41%. Not such a victory for Cheney eh?

I voted 37 times this morning! No one here locks their workstations. I just copy and pasted the URL into a Notepad document on our common network share, and voted to my heart's content! (I get in very early to deal with our tape backups). I may go around, clear everyone's cache and do it again tomorrow...

(Read: online poll = joke)

The culture is so intertwined here that dealing with Mexico isn't foreign ... not even close to it.
Texan and Mexican CULTURE (not governmental bodies) are so intertwined that dealing with Mexico doesn't give the governor of Texas "foreign affairs" experience, because Mexico and Texas hardly exhibit the differences that mark most separate countries.
The Mexican culture and the Texan culture are so intertwined that Texans dealing with Mexicans are *not* dealing with anything foreign.
Wait... what?? *ugh*

Wait... what?? *ugh*

It's an unfortunate side-effect of having people post indignant replies that don't answer the arguments. You have to repeat them many times in slightly different ways before it even penentrates the fog surrounding their brain that there's something they need to address. Sorry about the use of intertwined, but it seemed like the most appropriate word.

Wait... what?? *ugh*

I'm reasonably sure I can speak with authority on it.

Born and raised Texan, a Son of the Republic (http://www.srttexas.org/), a Caddo Indian, and a lifetime citizen of Texas.

I know Texas.

Ah, so you admit that Bush lied to Congress.

Yes, I hold Congress accountable for not digging deeper and finding more independent intelligenge, but while their mistake is regrettable, it is in no way comparable to lying in order to move a country into war.
Holy crap! Where did that come from? I see now why people don't debate in these forums. I love how I automatically get marked as a Bush supporter for for pointing out issues with a Democratically loaded statement and vice versa. Personally, I think the problem goes much deeper than partisan politics.

1. Please show me where I said, "Bush lied to Congress."
2. Faulty intelligence doesn't make him any more accountable than the people who gave it to him, which include the CIA, MI6 and ASIS.

both of my parents are history majors

Wow, the list keeps growing.. let's see, thus far we've had Corneliu's mother as an economics major, then why just yesterday in a post he said she was going into political science, now she's also a history major. Sorry if I'm going to have to cry foul on this one Corneliu.. Bullshit.

I voted 37 times this morning! No one here locks their workstations. I just copy and pasted the URL into a Notepad document on our common network share, and voted to my heart's content! (I get in very early to deal with our tape backups). I may go around, clear everyone's cache and do it again tomorrow...

(Read: online poll = joke)

Polling usually uses the IP address. So if you NAT, then you can have 10000 workstatations and only 1 vote will register....

Ah, so you admit that Bush lied to Congress.

Yes, I hold Congress accountable for not digging deeper and finding more independent intelligenge, but while their mistake is regrettable, it is in no way comparable to lying in order to move a country into war.

Congress can only do so much as the concept of "need to know" comes into play. Which considering politics is probably a good thing.

I wouldn't say the shrub lied. I think he presented only the data that supported his cause....

Polling usually uses the IP address. So if you NAT, then you can have 10000 workstatations and only 1 vote will register....
There has to be an added mechanism, because when I vote in an online poll it doesn't tell my office co-worker she can't because I already did.

2. Faulty intelligence doesn't make him any more accountable than the people who gave it to him, which include the CIA, MI6 and ASIS.

Faulty intelligence is also a convient excuse.

The intelligence community can't publicially defend it's data.....

Faulty intelligence is also a convient excuse.

The intelligence community can't publicially defend it's data.....
So the world-wide (allied) intelligence community is going through an overhaul for no reason?

Wow, the list keeps growing.. let's see, thus far we've had Corneliu's mother as an economics major, then why just yesterday in a post he said she was going into political science, now she's also a history major. Sorry if I'm going to have to cry foul on this one Corneliu.. Bullshit.
It looks like you have a major concern here huh Steph? LOL :D

It looks like you have a major concern here huh Steph? LOL :D

Oooooh .... good pun! :D

Your resume isn't necessary as it has no relevance to what I said. History has nothing to do with it.

History has everything to do with it actually.

The Mexican culture and the Texan culture are so intertwined that Texans dealing with Mexicans are *not* dealing with anything foreign. Different country, sure, but certainly not foreign in any cultural sense of the word.

However, Texas is in the US and Texas is dealing with mexico which is Foreign Affairs. No matter how you look at it Keruvalia that is how politics works. Since Texas is a member of the US and is dealing with Mexico, it is foreign affairs.

Doesn't this make all of Congress to blame as well for supporting him and not asking questions? The intelligence errors weren't limited to the US, either.

You are right here Aegonia. It wasn't just us but other nations too. I guess people keep forgetting that.

Wow, the list keeps growing.. let's see, thus far we've had Corneliu's mother as an economics major, then why just yesterday in a post he said she was going into political science, now she's also a history major. Sorry if I'm going to have to cry foul on this one Corneliu.. Bullshit.

Ok so someone can't have more than one degree? Where did I miss that? Yes she is an Economic AND History Major. My dad has a Major in History too. As for Political Science, she never completed it.

So I demand an apology. People can have more than one degree Stephistan wether you like it or not.

However, Texas is in the US and Texas is dealing with mexico which is Foreign Affairs. No matter how you look at it Keruvalia that is how politics works. Since Texas is a member of the US and is dealing with Mexico, it is foreign affairs.

If you say so, it must be true.

Polling usually uses the IP address. So if you NAT, then you can have 10000 workstatations and only 1 vote will register....

Ah, but they do... unless I'm the only person in a particular Fortune 10 company voting. :-)
(I admit we have a lot of NAT'ed addresses per site, but I suspect that this one is cookie based. As opposed to www.slashdot.org, which is user based.)

Ok so someone can't have more than one degree? Where did I miss that? Yes she is an Economic AND History Major. My dad has a Major in History too. As for Political Science, she never completed it.


'Tis true ...

When I went to college, I majored in Music Composition and Mathematics with a minor in Piano. But, then, I averaged 30 hours per semester in classes ... it was worth it, though.

I do find, however, that people tend not to believe it when someone mentions their own credentials. If I got into a music theory discussion online and started out by mentioning that I majored in Music Composition and am an accomplished professional composer and currently hold a position where I teach music, then people will be apt to automatically disbelieve. Nothing wrong with that ... it's just the way the internet works.

It's a discussion group, not a job interview.

You are right here Aegonia. It wasn't just us but other nations too. I guess people keep forgetting that.

No, we don't forget that, we just remember Bush lambasted countries that were unwilling to agree to support an Iraq war.

So let me get this straight. Bush is off the hook because Congress bought his lies, and other countries who had some intelligence that supported Bush (and quite a lot that obviously did not,) resisted his legitimate war?

I simply do not get your argument.

Doesn't this make all of Congress to blame as well for supporting him and not asking questions? The intelligence errors weren't limited to the US, either.
Yes but the US wishes to be morally superiority to other countries. To do so they would have to apologize for misleading others.
It doesn't matter whether it was his fault or not; he mislead the people.

A grown man would take responsibility and say with clear conviction:
" America, I'm sorry, I've mislead you going into Iraq. I believed that there were WMD (or whatever he wishes to us in place of that term). I followeed intelligence that many now say was questionable. I didn't realize it then. I'm sorry again. Please forgive me for my grave error."

Now how hard is that?


2. Faulty intelligence doesn't make him any more accountable than the people who gave it to him, which include the CIA, MI6 and ASIS.

so the buck never stops? Its his job as the leader of United States of America to take responsibility for the country. That is the job he signed up for back in 2000.

Wow, the list keeps growing.. let's see, thus far we've had Corneliu's mother as an economics major, then why just yesterday in a post he said she was going into political science, now she's also a history major. Sorry if I'm going to have to cry foul on this one Corneliu.. Bullshit.

Most Poli-Sci majors in most universities have at least two minors and/or a minor in either business, philosophy, or history.

I'm not sure if you've ever gone to college, but multiple degrees are required in some fields...

Is it just me or were both candidates WAY too frank and informal? Cheney moreso than Edwards, but both were still pretty rude. I mean, what happened to the good old days when politics wasn't so nasty?

There has to be an added mechanism, because when I vote in an online poll it doesn't tell my office co-worker she can't because I already did.

Depends on how it is written. It could very well be that somebody has a mean sense of humor and would not tell you it is getting ignored.

Each does it's own thing but even the people doing the poll would tell you it's not overly accurate as they are not policing the results.

But to your original point, online polls don't mean much since only the people who visit the site respond. They tend to follow the main idiology of site(ie fox polls tend to favor conservative issues).

Well this item suggests that your statement...."Cheney took Edwards to the woodpile on this one.", is not entirely accurate and is actually false?

The Democrat was viewed more positively in a poll of 178 undecided voters by CBS News that found more of this crucial group thought he had won, 41 percent, than thought Cheney had won, 28 percent.

Not a bad showing for a "rookie" versus the seasoned veteran?
A poll of population 178 has an 8 percent margain of error, so statistically, Edwards and Cheney are tied.

What I want to know is this. Edwards said many times during the debate that "We think we can do better." That plus their whole platform of "help is on the way" causes me to ask if they could do better, why haven't they done so yet as Senators?
Why haven't they gotten together before and proposed legislation to "do better"?
Why haven't they done anything in the Senate to ensure "help is on the way" before now?
Or is it all campaign rhetoric?
How about the GOP runs all three branches right now? If anyone should be put to the test of what hasn't been done, it's the GOP.

So the world-wide (allied) intelligence community is going through an overhaul for no reason?

I don't know. I am out of that business now.

The fact remains. They can't defend themselves in a public setting.

We haven't seen all the data that was given to the shrub.

Even the 9/11 report said they were not given access to the Presidental daily briefs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Yes, it's an online poll, but almost 2 million votes have been placed on it. And it has Edwards winning 59% to 41%. Not such a victory for Cheney eh?

Not such a victory for Edwards when that dorky leader of the DNC was sending massive email, telling all of the democrat puppets to do as many surveys and call up as many talk shows as possible to say that Edwards won (and earlier how Kerry won). Can't really trust online polls!!!

History has everything to do with it actually.

However, Texas is in the US and Texas is dealing with mexico which is Foreign Affairs. No matter how you look at it Keruvalia that is how politics works. Since Texas is a member of the US and is dealing with Mexico, it is foreign affairs.

History may have something to do with it, but only insofar as the historical cultural interactions between the nations have to do with how "foreign" a foreign country is. Cultural differences are the true test of whether "foreign affairs" experience means anything. For instance, if a governor deals with Canada occasionally, it's not like we think that means they have valid experience when it comes to dealing with the Middle East. Why? Because Canada doesn't have vastly different cultural values, nor are they particularly culturally distinct from us. Hence, your claims about his foreign affairs experience being somehow superior to Edwards' are foolish, because they have no bearing in the context of what we're talking about. Yes, Bush had spoken with foreign leaders. So what? That doesn't make you an accomplished negotiator, a persuasive guy, or even someone that other foreign leaders will trust.

Ah, but they do... unless I'm the only person in a particular Fortune 10 company voting. :-)
(I admit we have a lot of NAT'ed addresses per site, but I suspect that this one is cookie based. As opposed to www.slashdot.org, which is user based.)

Ahh ok.

I didn't mean to imply that it was only IP based.

But you are probably right on the cookie approach.

But like you said online polls are not all inclusive.....

Ok so someone can't have more than one degree? Where did I miss that? Yes she is an Economic AND History Major. My dad has a Major in History too. As for Political Science, she never completed it.

So I demand an apology. People can have more than one degree Stephistan wether you like it or not.

I'm still waiting for my apology from you...and yet you're demanding that other people apologize? Consistency...

My God! How can you peeople not see it!?!

Dick Cheney is about the most awesome man alive right now. Every other post seems to be about how he's old and has no personality. Cheney has more personality in the bald half of his head then most people have in their entire bodies.

THE MAN IS TERROR AND INTIMIDATION INCARNATE. He is the closest thing we have right now to the Nixonesque, tough ol' SOB professional politician. You know that he could easily have you killed and think absolutely nothing of it. Its just business. A couple of times, usually after an irrelevant Haliburton comment, you could see his eyes light up, the inner fire rage, and that sinister grin emerge. He probably had to struggle to keep himself from jumping over the table and strangling that young upstart senator to death with his bear hands. Me and my friends all agree that he probably secretly recieves his sustanance by eating children.

However, instead of killing Edwards and drinking his sweet, delicious bone marrow, Cheney took the lad to school. If you did not notice that Cheney was toying with Edwards the whole time you must have been watching another debate. On countless occasions, Cheney landed the debate equivalent of a "bitch slap" on Edwards. Cheney had names and numbers to combat everything that Edwards said. You could just see the pain and hatred within Cheney because for some reason the world had forced him to condescend and speak with this man who knows less than 1/100 of what he knows for almost 2 hours. The 1st term senator with an inactive membership was simply no match for one of the most seasoned politicans in America.

However, women think Edwards is cute so there goes about 50% of the vote.

Dick Cheney is exactly the type of man I want in office. He's the type of man who understands how the system works and knows how to work the system. He does things simple and dirty, and gets the job done. He is the type of man who can do all the necessary, "evil", work that is required to keep this country running and running strong with no appreciation at all from the people who use the very privalges he helps to provide to condemn and criticize him. He'll just keep on going like a machine despite all of you, with only the occasional evil grin and flash of light in his eyes.

A poll of population 178 has an 8 percent margain of error, so statistically, Edwards and Cheney are tied.

This is a silly statement on your part. With a margin of 8 percent, you could just as validly say Edwards won by over 20% as say they tied. A margin of error is a range of possible values that could also be true, not just saying that one way of moving in that range is true.

I am surprised people think there is a clear victor in this debate. Well not really as the supporters think their boy won.

The debate to me was a draw. There was no clear knockouts from either side.

Both "stretched" some facts.

Edwards came across as young and inexperinced while Cheney came across as experienced but doesn't give a crap about anybody. To me it seemed like he was saying things he didn't belive but he did because he knew he had to....

Cheney seemed to know his stuff and what is sad it makes you wonder who is really running the goverment.....
What qualifies the statement that Edwards came out as young and inexperienced? Simply because Cheney said so? Cheney did seem like he knew his points a lot better than Bush did. But hey, let's go ahead and check the voting records, check the records when mr. experience cut all those programs he's now slamming kerry for. Yeah he was secretary of defense when the cold war ended and we did begin downsizing the military. Now only one side mis-uses this fact to demonize the opponent. Since we're talking about who is qualified for what, what made a lifelong drunk, failed businessman, and one term governor qualified to be the President?

Not such a victory for Edwards when that dorky leader of the DNC was sending massive email, telling all of the democrat puppets to do as many surveys and call up as many talk shows as possible to say that Edwards won (and earlier how Kerry won). Can't really trust online polls!!!

Oh and the Repubs wouldn't do that? :rolleyes:

Why was the Cheney girl siting a poll saying dad won by a land slide? She wouldn't say whose....

Love that Anne Richards though.

"Sounds like Fox News did a poll...." ;)

My God! How can you peeople not see it!?!

Dick Cheney is about the most awesome man alive right now. Every other post seems to be about how he's old and has no personality. Cheney has more personality in the bald half of his head then most people have in their entire bodies.

THE MAN IS TERROR AND INTIMIDATION INCARNATE. He is the closest thing we have right now to the Nixonesque, tough ol' SOB professional politician. You know that he could easily have you killed and think absolutely nothing of it. Its just business. A couple of times, usually after an irrelevant Haliburton comment, you could see his eyes light up, the inner fire rage, and that sinister grin emerge. He probably had to struggle to keep himself from jumping over the table and strangling that young upstart senator to death with his bear hands. Me and my friends all agree that he probably secretly recieves his sustanance by eating children.

However, instead of killing Edwards and drinking his sweet, delicious bone marrow, Cheney took the lad to school. If you did not notice that Cheney was toying with Edwards the whole time you must have been watching another debate. On countless occasions, Cheney landed the debate equivalent of a "bitch slap" on Edwards. Cheney had names and numbers to combat everything that Edwards said. You could just see the pain and hatred within Cheney because for some reason the world had forced him to condescend and speak with this man who knows less than 1/100 of what he knows for almost 2 hours. The 1st term senator with an inactive membership was simply no match for one of the most seasoned politicans in America.

However, women think Edwards is cute so there goes about 50% of the vote.

Dick Cheney is exactly the type of man I want in office. He's the type of man who understands how the system works and knows how to work the system. He does things simple and dirty, and gets the job done. He is the type of man who can do all the necessary, "evil", work that is required to keep this country running and running strong with no appreciation at all from the people who use the very privalges he helps to provide to condemn and criticize him. He'll just keep on going like a machine despite all of you, with only the occasional evil grin and flash of light in his eyes.

I pray that this is sarcasm/parody/an attempt at humor. Because otherwise, you're a sexist, bigoted idiot that, while you deserve your free speech as everyone does, would make the world a better place by keeping silent.

Wow, the list keeps growing.. let's see, thus far we've had Corneliu's mother as an economics major, then why just yesterday in a post he said she was going into political science, now she's also a history major. Sorry if I'm going to have to cry foul on this one Corneliu.. Bullshit.


Just like you are unbiased, and are working on your PhD. Sure, sure....Bullshit.

What qualifies the statement that Edwards came out as young and inexperienced? Simply because Cheney said so? Cheney did seem like he knew his points a lot better than Bush did. But hey, let's go ahead and check the voting records, check the records when mr. experience cut all those programs he's now slamming kerry for. Yeah he was secretary of defense when the cold war ended and we did begin downsizing the military. Now only one side mis-uses this fact to demonize the opponent. Since we're talking about who is qualified for what, what made a lifelong drunk, failed businessman, and one term governor qualified to be the President?

Down puppy!

It's just the way he came across to me.

Don't assume I am a Cheney fan.

Just like you are unbiased, and are working on your PhD. Sure, sure....Bullshit.

Well slick. You have a problem.

Steph has never said she was not biased. In fact she said she was on certain issues.

Why would she make up a lie about working on PhD?

Even if it is a lie; it's still better then my mom is a economics major, a poliitical science major, a history major, a what-evers next major......

Well slick. You have a problem.

Steph has never said she was not biased. In fact she said she was on certain issues.

Why would she make up a lie about working on PhD?

Even if it is a lie; it's still better then my mom is a economics major, a poliitical science major, a history major, a what-evers next major......

Uh....actually she did say she had no bias....because she is "Canadian." So you are incorrect on this one. I wish I could find that thread again but it was about 10 days ago. Of course I made a big deal out of it, that is my nature. ;)

Cheney is a soulless reptile bastard.
The only thing he is good for is telling Bush what to say and do, and all those decisions have been disasterous.

Can you tell me exactly where you DON'T have to sort out the crap from the real information? Because there's no purely objective source of information. If you're afraid to do that work, then you're not an American who's interested in finding truth.

Ok, gimme a sec. Example on its way.

Consider the variable of subjectivity x, x is defined for all real numbers, ranging from positive infinity (ultra-Kerry supporters) to negative infinity (ultra Bush supporters). At the origin, x= 0subjectivity.

I want my information to be as close to 0 as possible. I know I may never reach it, but that's my ambition.

Stephy is giving me an x that is 5 billion. This is a tremendous distance away from my goal. It's essentially worthless for me to go through with investigation into this information, because it's going to take me a lot of time and energy to approach my 0 quantity I desire (convicibly approach, anyway).

This is time and energy I could've spent going through someone else's information with an x of 5. Why should I waste my time on things I know I'm going to have derive to find facts, when I can just get closer to the sources myself?

See how easy that was?

What you said was like saying "if you are afraid to get hurt, you aren't good. So, let's all jump in front of a moving truck!"

An over-generalization, I know, but it gets my point across.

'Tis true ...

When I went to college, I majored in Music Composition and Mathematics with a minor in Piano. But, then, I averaged 30 hours per semester in classes ... it was worth it, though.

I do find, however, that people tend not to believe it when someone mentions their own credentials. If I got into a music theory discussion online and started out by mentioning that I majored in Music Composition and am an accomplished professional composer and currently hold a position where I teach music, then people will be apt to automatically disbelieve. Nothing wrong with that ... it's just the way the internet works.

It's a discussion group, not a job interview.
Really?!? You majored in music comp?!?

Where'd you study? Who was your professor (or professors)?

Sorry, for that outburst, I'm a bit of a composition aficionado...and jugador

I pray that this is sarcasm/parody/an attempt at humor. Because otherwise, you're a sexist, bigoted idiot that, while you deserve your free speech as everyone does, would make the world a better place by keeping silent.

Though clearly sarcasm is pervassive in my statement above, I am 100% sincere in the basic arguements.

I believe that nothing I said was untrue, besides an admittedly exaggerated statistic of 50%. However, the principle governing my statement is factual and does exist, whether or not it offends you or makes me out to be sexist.

As for your comments, you, like myself, are entitled. A couple of them are also accurate. Yes I am a bigot and some of my views are sexist. I acknowledge this fact and would have it no other way. I will, however, ignore your accusations regarding intelligence or decency. Your reply is more of a personal attack, a little unfounded I believe because you don't know me, and I would prefer and welcome an actual arguement against my beliefs and not my person. Thank you.

Uh....actually she did say she had no bias....because she is "Canadian." So you are incorrect on this one. I wish I could find that thread again but it was about 10 days ago. Of course I made a big deal out of it, that is my nature. ;)

Hmpf. Missed that one.

Ahh well don't know the facts so I can't judge on that instance......

People can have more than one degree Stephistan wether you like it or not.

Oh I do know that.. It just seems rather suspect that your mother keeps having a degree in whatever backs up your argument in any given thread. If she turns up as a science major for the stem cell debate.. well yeah know. I think it's also important to point out what degree your parents may or may not have, they are not your degrees.. thus you can't argue from your parents degree stand-point. So invoke your own experience not that of your parents that really have nothing to do with your personal knowledge base..

I think it's also important to point out what degree your parents may or may not have, they are not your degrees.. thus you can't argue from your parents degree stand-point. So invoke your own experience not that of your parents that really have nothing to do with your personal knowledge base..

I will probably be using the above quote someday....;)

Hmpf. Missed that one.

Ahh well don't know the facts so I can't judge on that instance......
I think Steph believes that since she isn't American she has no "true" bias since she can't win any support for her favorite party in canada in America. Americans in United States can't vote in Camnadian elections and vice versa.

Do all Canadians say "eh" or is it just the one I know in real life? Just curious lol.

Hmpf. Missed that one.

Ahh well don't know the facts so I can't judge on that instance......

I said I was unbaised on one thing Black Forrest.. it might come as a huge surprise to you, but apparently Biff has taken me out of context at some point. Are you really so surprised?

I said I was unbaised on one thing Black Forrest.. it might come as a huge surprise to you, but apparently Biff has taken me out of context at some point. Are you really so surprised?

Did I? You said you had no bias regarding the US election because you were "Canadian." However, you, like me and every other human being has a bias when it comes to every subject. How you can claim to NOT have a bias when the venom drips from every one of your posts is beyond me.

and since the usual tactic of the right-wing is to ignore any information that runs counter to their biased notions, I doubt if my post here will make any difference.


are you kidding me?
oh yeah the left wingers go only based on the real truth. the hard facts.

i am an independant voter.(not as in party. i just make my own decisions.)

to say that either the far left/rigth doesnt distort facts over over look facts for political gains is rediculous and you should remove yourself from political disscussions for you have nothing to contribute.

Ok, gimme a sec. Example on its way.

Consider the variable of subjectivity x, x is defined for all real numbers, ranging from positive infinity (ultra-Kerry supporters) to negative infinity (ultra Bush supporters). At the origin, x= 0subjectivity.

I want my information to be as close to 0 as possible. I know I may never reach it, but that's my ambition.

Stephy is giving me an x that is 5 billion. This is a tremendous distance away from my goal. It's essentially worthless for me to go through with investigation into this information, because it's going to take me a lot of time and energy to approach my 0 quantity I desire (convicibly approach, anyway).

Really. And in your example, what would x=5 represent? Or are you just randomly assigning arbitrary values (hint: this is a rhetorical question, because the answer is obviously yes) to certain things?

This is time and energy I could've spent going through someone else's information with an x of 5. Why should I waste my time on things I know I'm going to have derive to find facts, when I can just get closer to the sources myself?

Which sources are you going to "get closer" to? And are you sure those sources are any closer than "5 billion"?

See how easy that was?

See what an utterly pointless example that was?

What you said was like saying "if you are afraid to get hurt, you aren't good. So, let's all jump in front of a moving truck!"

This analogy is a complete non-sequitur. You claim to want the truth, then provide (and can't provide) any objective standard for evaluating whether a source is closer to the truth or not. FOr instance, let's hop back to your infinity to negative infinity scale. Is your assertion by this that no ultra-Kerry supporter's information is correct? Surely you recognize that just because someone is biased, they may still be quoting correct information. And that the converse of this is also true...just because someone is relative unbiased doesn't mean that they're quoting unbiased information. Hence, no matter what x you choose, you will be sorting. And there's absolutely no way you could possibly quantify the differential in your "x=5*10^9" and "x=-5*10^9" without relying on your own subjective opinion. See the conundrum you're in?

An over-generalization, I know, but it gets my point across.

It gets the point across that your entire example is arbitrary and proves nothing that you want it to prove.

Did I? You said you had no bias because you were "Canadian." However, you, like me and every other human being has a bias when it comes to every subject.

It was based on one conversation.. do I have a biased against Bush? Yes of course I do based on his actions.

Listen my credibility is not in question here, I'm a trusted member of NS so much so I was made a mod, you on the other hand sir are a cheat. You were running multi's and you and your puppet have been ejected from the UN, you see I don't cheat, it goes against my very beliefs, that's why I'm a mod! Further, you use your puppet to back up your own arguments, that makes you a dishonest person. I have never done any of the following. You have NO credibility.

It was based on one conversation.. do I have a biased against Bush? Yes of course I do based on his actions.

Listen my credibility is not in question here, I'm a trusted member of NS so much so I was made a mod, you on the other hand sir are a cheat. You were running multi's and you and your puppet have been ejected from the UN, you see I don't cheat, it goes against my very beliefs, that's why I'm a mod! Further, you use your puppet to back up your own arguments, that makes you a dishonest person. I have never done any of the following. You have NO credibility.

Is that true Biff?

It was based on one conversation.. do I have a biased against Bush? Yes of course I do based on his actions.

Listen my credibility is not in question here, I'm a trusted member of NS so much so I was made a mod, you on the other hand sir are a cheat. You were running multi's and you and your puppet have been ejected from the UN, you see I don't cheat, it goes against my very beliefs, that's why I'm a mod! Further, you use your puppet to back up your own arguments, that makes you a dishonest person. I have never done any of the following. You have NO credibility.

Really? I have NO credibility....yet you have just now...for the first time....admitted that you have a bias. Amazing....

However....all is forgiven.

As for cheating...I have not played the "game" in awhile. So that is a non-issue.

I'm still waiting for my apology from you...and yet you're demanding that other people apologize? Consistency...

Actually I had a response to it but then my stupid internet conked out when I typed out. Luckily I saved it. My next post to you will be that response.

Is that true Biff?

When I first started on this site I did sign up with a different name. However, I forgot the password I used and could not get back into it so I created another one. I have multiple computers at both home and my office. When I logged on this morning to a computer I have not used in quite awhile, the cookie was still there that signed me in as my first name. Since I go straight to the forum I did not notice. So I guess it could be true.

Well slick. You have a problem.

Steph has never said she was not biased. In fact she said she was on certain issues.

Why would she make up a lie about working on PhD?

Even if it is a lie; it's still better then my mom is a economics major, a poliitical science major, a history major, a what-evers next major......

And I never said that she completed her Poli Sci major. I said she was working on it but never completed it. She is a history major and an Economic Major. My dad is also a history major. I am going for a history Minor with a major in Meteorology.

Really? I have NO credibility....yet you have just now...for the first time....admitted that you have a bias. Amazing....

However....all is forgiven.

As for cheating...I have not played the "game" in awhile. So that is a non-issue.

Ok a confession of cheating on the game.

But what about

"Further, you use your puppet to back up your own arguments,"

Ok a confession of cheating on the game.

But what about

"Further, you use your puppet to back up your own arguments,"

Not unless I made a post this morning that was on the other computer. If I did I am unaware of it. I can speak for myself without having to do such things.

When I first started on this site I did sign up with a different name. However, I forgot the password I used and could not get back into it so I created another one. I have multiple computers at both home and my office. When I logged on this morning to a computer I have not used in quite awhile, the cookie was still there that signed me in as my first name. Since I go straight to the forum I did not notice. So I guess it could be true.

Yes, you've used your puppet in this thread. It is very true! That still doesn't address why you would cheat with the UN though? Why would you put both of your nations in the UN? You can't say you didn't know the rules?

Oh I do know that.. It just seems rather suspect that your mother keeps having a degree in whatever backs up your argument in any given thread. If she turns up as a science major for the stem cell debate.. well yeah know. I think it's also important to point out what degree your parents may or may not have, they are not your degrees.. thus you can't argue from your parents degree stand-point. So invoke your own experience not that of your parents that really have nothing to do with your personal knowledge base..

No science major Steph. Sorry about that one. As for stem cell research, it shouldn't be government funded. :p

As for degrees, your right, it is not my degree but I do learn alot from them because of their degrees. I can't argue for my parents but I can argue over what I've learned from them and books and documentaries and encyclopedias.

As for my experience, I've been studying history most of my life thanks to my parents. I've studied from the French and Indian War to the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and on and on. I'm from the old addage, "He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it."

Biff:

I can see from your statements your not for a drug free America…..What channel were You watching? Edwards clearly won!
Rebuttal

Yes, you've used your puppet in this thread. It is very true! That still doesn't address why you would cheat with the UN though? Why would you put both of your nations in the UN? You can't say you didn't know the rules?

As I have said, I did start with one name...lost the password and started over. Accept it as you will or won't.

And I never said that she completed her Poli Sci major. I said she was working on it but never completed it. She is a history major and an Economic Major. My dad is also a history major. I am going for a history Minor with a major in Meteorology.

Ok Corne, no worries.

Just a couple curiosity questions. How old are you? What do you parents do?

I don't see too many familes where both parents are working, raising kids, and attending school.

Like I said it's just curiosity.......

Dick Cheney is about the most awesome man alive right now. Every other post seems to be about how he's old and has no personality. Cheney has more personality in the bald half of his head then most people have in their entire bodies.

There is zero warrant in this argument. Hopefully, when you tell me you want an argument, you'll be inclined to not respond with these types of arguments against what I'm about to say.

THE MAN IS TERROR AND INTIMIDATION INCARNATE. He is the closest thing we have right now to the Nixonesque, tough ol' SOB professional politician.

Who is he intimidating? Did he intimidate Saddam in 1991? Did he intimidate Osama bin Laden in 2001? It seems to me that the worst terrorist attack in American history happened on his "watch", and yet you now think that his "toughness" is an asset? Oh, because the Iraqi insurgents sure have stopped fighting us for fear of Cheney.

You know that he could easily have you killed and think absolutely nothing of it. Its just business.

Yes, and the same might have been able to be said of the SS. That made them wonderful people, right?

A couple of times, usually after an irrelevant Haliburton comment, you could see his eyes light up, the inner fire rage, and that sinister grin emerge. He probably had to struggle to keep himself from jumping over the table and strangling that young upstart senator to death with his bear hands.

1. The Halliburton comments were certainly not irrelevant. His business dealings with what the Bush administration has labelled the "axis of evil" are certainly relevant to his capacity to act in a way that is beneficial to the American people as a whole, and not just certain corporate interests.

2. And we're all so proud of his admirable restraint in not killing someone on live television. Repressing that evil nature is such a huge step in being a good public servant - in case you need the argument made explicitly, an aptitude toward senseless violence is precisely the opposite of what would make a good public servant, yet you seem to laud his violent urges. That is silly.

Me and my friends all agree that he probably secretly recieves his sustanance by eating children.

Yet another behavior that should surely inspire confidence in all of us.

However, instead of killing Edwards and drinking his sweet, delicious bone marrow, Cheney took the lad to school. If you did not notice that Cheney was toying with Edwards the whole time you must have been watching another debate.

Cheney wasn't toying with Edwards. Cheney was ATTEMPTING to toy with Edwards. While I was hardly floored by Edwards' performance, there were very, very few places were he looked taken aback. The first reference to Halliburton had Cheney looking like Dubya during the first debate. His response was weak, ineffectual, and conceded way too much of the initiative to Edwards.

On countless occasions, Cheney landed the debate equivalent of a "bitch slap" on Edwards. Cheney had names and numbers to combat everything that Edwards said.

Never mind the fact that many of those names and numbers were contrived, misrepresentations, or outright lies. I could spout off numbers off the top of my head that supported whatever I wanted to claim, but that's far from landing a "bitch slap". That's called being a liar.

You could just see the pain and hatred within Cheney because for some reason the world had forced him to condescend and speak with this man who knows less than 1/100 of what he knows for almost 2 hours. The 1st term senator with an inactive membership was simply no match for one of the most seasoned politicans in America.

I, and apparently a majority of the people watching the debate, happen to disagree with your assessment. I've been involved in competitive debate in high school and college for over 6 years, and Cheney was far from the debate god you would wish for him to be. Instead of engaging in hyperbole, make some warrants that back up these claims.

However, women think Edwards is cute so there goes about 50% of the vote.

This, even if not intended literally, is still an example of ignorance and sexism. Many polls have shown womyn to be more concerned primarily with terrorism than men. Additionally, they have shown that womyn are split between voting for Kerry and Bush. If womyn thinking Edwards was cute cost Bush half the votes, they wouldn't be evenly divided, now would they?

Dick Cheney is exactly the type of man I want in office. He's the type of man who understands how the system works and knows how to work the system. He does things simple and dirty, and gets the job done. He is the type of man who can do all the necessary, "evil", work that is required to keep this country running and running strong with no appreciation at all from the people who use the very privalges he helps to provide to condemn and criticize him.

Arguments like this are precisely why our leaders keep lying to us, keep forcing unnecessary violence on us, and create an atmosphere of hatred and fear. Your call to encourage that type of thinking only serves to further an agenda that will get more Americans (and people all over the world) killed in futile acts of retribution.

As for the "privalges", Cheney himself hasn't provided me with any privileges. That's a fun thing for you to get to claim, but it has absolutely no basis in reality. In fact, I would argue that because of the fearmongering in the war on terror, my civil liberties and rights have been diminished. The country isn't any better off (and I think is significantly worse off) than it was 4 years ago, and no amount of ridiculous fiction on your part will change that.

He'll just keep on going like a machine despite all of you, with only the occasional evil grin and flash of light in his eyes.

More of the same unwarranted ranting. I've answered this already.

As I have said, I did start with one name...lost the password and started over. Accept it as you will or won't.
But whether it was an accident or purpose, it doesn't change the act.
A man who murders while an accidently has a lesser crime than a purpose one. That still means he has to repay society for the crime.
Have you apologized yet to Nation States?

No science major Steph. Sorry about that one. As for stem cell research, it shouldn't be government funded. :p

As for degrees, your right, it is not my degree but I do learn alot from them because of their degrees. I can't argue for my parents but I can argue over what I've learned from them and books and documentaries and encyclopedias.

As for my experience, I've been studying history most of my life thanks to my parents. I've studied from the French and Indian War to the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and on and on. I'm from the old addage, "He who fails to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it."

All right fair enough, I have no proof you're lying, but I'm sure how you can understand how I might of found it a little suspect given your mother kept having degrees in the topic we were discussing on any given day..lol I will give you the benefit of the doubt. She doesn't have any more degrees we should know about though.. right? ;)

Though clearly sarcasm is pervassive in my statement above, I am 100% sincere in the basic arguements.

I believe that nothing I said was untrue, besides an admittedly exaggerated statistic of 50%. However, the principle governing my statement is factual and does exist, whether or not it offends you or makes me out to be sexist.

Me and my friends all agree that he probably secretly recieves his sustanance by eating children.



so its true he eats babies?

Though clearly sarcasm is pervassive in my statement above, I am 100% sincere in the basic arguements.

I believe that nothing I said was untrue, besides an admittedly exaggerated statistic of 50%. However, the principle governing my statement is factual and does exist, whether or not it offends you or makes me out to be sexist.

As for your comments, you, like myself, are entitled. A couple of them are also accurate. Yes I am a bigot and some of my views are sexist. I acknowledge this fact and would have it no other way. I will, however, ignore your accusations regarding intelligence or decency. Your reply is more of a personal attack, a little unfounded I believe because you don't know me, and I would prefer and welcome an actual arguement against my beliefs and not my person. Thank you.

That argument has already been made (see above), and of course I can only predicate my opinions of you based on your posts, but if you admit to the "principle governing your statement", you confess to your ignorance, as I have duly pointed out. While there may be attacks that pertain to you personally, they only do so insofar as they relate to your own statements. I'm hardly saying that you treat your mother badly, or that you smell like potatoes. Stop attempting to (falsely) appeal to fairness and reasonability when you refuse to entertain those same standards.

This analogy is a complete non-sequitur. You claim to want the truth, then provide (and can't provide) any objective standard for evaluating whether a source is closer to the truth or not.
Well, there's the Platonian ideal that there is discrete knowledge that is and that you can know certain things. And the contrasting Aristotlian chain of thought that practical knowledge and experience are the lenses through which the world is viewed. I never differentiated in my example between these two. Let me see what you're asking first, let's continue, shall we?


FOr instance, let's hop back to your infinity to negative infinity scale. Is your assertion by this that no ultra-Kerry supporter's information is correct?
Surely you recognize that just because someone is biased, they may still be quoting correct information.

Yes, I realize that. My point was that the deeper someone's bias is, the less likely it is that you'll be able to come towards the truth from it without a great deal of hassle. There's a higher probability of spin.


And that the converse of this is also true...just because someone is relative unbiased doesn't mean that they're quoting unbiased information. Hence, no matter what x you choose, you will be sorting.

I don't mean that I wouldn't be sorting, but the idea is for me to sort the fewest number of false-sources/spin-based-doctrine/ steph-blowing-steams as possible. That way I can go back to living in my real life, where the government can ignore me for 4 years, as it has done since...oh wait...it's always done that.


there's no way you could quantify the differential in your "x=5*10^9" and "x=-5*10^9" without relying on your own subjective opinion.

Yes, this is understood. I would be leaning on my own subjectivity to evaluate whether something is biased or not. Or, perhaps more to the point and more in line with what we're saying, to reason how much something is biased.

But, then again, it isn't that hard to differentiate between a "MoveOn.org" and an "msnbc.com".

It becomes really managable when I began to realize that there really isn't any "x value" between 5 and 5 billion. I have a hardtime finding "mostly biased sources".

This is because of the audiences. If a news organization wishes to retain any credibility with both sides of an issue, it must limit the ammount of bias it inserts into the news. However, with "political activists", there is no reaching over to the "other" side. All they have to do is satisfy their base. Thus, they don't lose credibility with their base if they say things that, though possibly extremely biased, agree with the views of that constituency.

So, while certain news organization are limiting themselves in order to keep some credibility with everyone, those that remove the requirement for credibility tend to produce very, very subjective things. When the sky's the limit, those Eagles are going to soar.

Just vote for the Green Party.
Good choice if you dislike Bush and Kerry

But whether it was an accident or purpose, it doesn't change the act.
A man who murders while an accidently has a lesser crime than a purpose one. That still means he has to repay society for the crime.
Have you apologized yet to Nation States?

You MUST be joking.

You MUST be joking.
No, I fully believe that all people should apologize when they wronged others . The Nation States Site is a entity that Biff wronged by his having two countries in UN
Therefore apologies are necessary. No one will force him, but then again morals aren't forced they are your choice.

All right fair enough, I have no proof you're lying, but I'm sure how you can understand how I might of found it a little suspect given your mother kept having degrees in the topic we were discussing on any given day..lol I will give you the benefit of the doubt. She doesn't have any more degrees we should know about though.. right? ;)

LOL!!! No no more degrees steph

Just vote for the Green Party.
Good choice if you dislike Bush and Kerry


what if you dot like any? bush is messing up. kerry is going to mess it up more. nader would never win and since no major network gives him a fair shake and the Fact that the dems are pushing to get him off the ballot.wtf is that? how is that democratic? our voting system is messed up and the only votes that count are the electorial ones. and they dont even have to vote the way of the populace for the only reason that they cant vote in the next election.

No, I fully believe that all people should apologize when they wronged others . The Nation States Site is a entity that Biff wronged by his having two countries.
THerefore aplogies are necessary. No one will force him, but then again morals aren't forced they are your choice.

Ok, here goes. I apologize for forgetting the password for the first name I signed up as. It was unintentional. Any posts I might have made under that first name, where wholly inline with any that I make under this one.


Never say you are sorry. Apologize if you must, but never say you are sorry. --- Gen. George S. Patton

Look, it works like this;

Republicans want a small all-powerful government i.e. a Dictatorship.

Democrats want a large all-powerful government i.e. a Communist state.

I probably would've voted Libertarian, but some liberals make me so furious that I'm voting for Bush just to cancel one of their votes out. Petty? Hell yeah.

Well, there's the Platonian ideal that there is discrete knowledge that is and that you can know certain things. And the contrasting Aristotlian chain of thought that practical knowledge and experience are the lenses through which the world is viewed. I never differentiated in my example between these two. Let me see what you're asking first, let's continue, shall we?

The differential is irrelevant in the context of this discussion, and I'm not entirely sure of why this aside is necessary. Is it an attempt to show off a basic philosophical education? Or is it just an attempt at humor? Not really important.

Yes, I realize that. My point was that the deeper someone's bias is, the less likely it is that you'll be able to come towards the truth from it without a great deal of hassle. There's a higher probability of spin.

Yes, but in your attempt to reduce the problem to mathematics and probability, you seem to have forgotten that there is no way (even assuming you can know the "truth" of a matter) you can distinguish between the two, unless you've already assumed that if a person says "Bush can't seem to articulate a coherent thought on the fly" will automatically spin everything. I hardly engage in a lot of spin. I'm usually much more preoccupied with calling other people on their spin. I have my own beliefs, but I certainly don't make arguments that don't at least have warrants, and preferably evidentiary support. I'm essentially calling you on your assumptions on where people fall in these rankings into question, and your only answer is inherently a self-referential one. A far cry from the mathematical and statistical schema that you'd prefer us to view your arguments though.

I don't mean that I wouldn't be sorting, but the idea is for me to sort the fewest number of false-sources/spin-based-doctrine/ steph-blowing-steams as possible. That way I can go back to living in my real life, where the government can ignore me for 4 years, as it has done since...oh wait...it's always done that.

True. Government vastly ignores us, and I'm happy to agree with you on this. But that doesn't mean that your methodology for sorting through spin is a good one or even one that has warranted assumptions behind it. Some may be warranted, but your rigor in scientifically and mathematically examining them is fairly clearly lacking. Hence, your claims of more and less, fewest and most, etc, are not provably better than reading everything.

Yes, this is understood. I would be leaning on my own subjectivity to evaluate whether something is biased or not. Or, perhaps more to the point and more in line with what we're saying, to reason how much something is biased.

But, then again, it isn't that hard to differentiate between a "MoveOn.org" and an "msnbc.com".

I disagree with you, here. I think that while we often times THINK it's easier to distinguish, it isn't necessarily. The black and white fallacy is fairly easy to fall into, and we instinctively think that if people are falling in between two "radical" positions, they're more credible, but that's often not the case.

It becomes really managable when I began to realize that there really isn't any "x value" between 5 and 5 billion. I have a hardtime finding "mostly biased sources".

I assume you mean mostly unbiased sources. And yes, they are hard to find, but not because everyone is a political whacko, but rather because it's much harder to determine what constitutes bias. It's certainly not as cut and dry as you would have us believe.

This is because of the audiences. If a news organization wishes to retain any credibility with both sides of an issue, it must limit the ammount of bias it inserts into the news. However, with "political activists", there is no reaching over to the "other" side. All they have to do is satisfy their base. Thus, they don't lose credibility with their base if they say things that, though possibly extremely biased, agree with the views of that constituency.

Given that news media (left, right and centrist news media included) is concerned with ratings, I find it hard to believe that you think they are overly concerned with credibility. Money drives these, and sensational stories make money. Obviously, they'll choose their sensational stories fairly carefully (they don't get paid if they're easily made to look like liars), but given the amount of interpretation inherent in politics on the best days, there's a huge amount of leeway that they have in determining what will sell and what won't.

So, while certain news organization are limiting themselves in order to keep some credibility with everyone, those that remove the requirement for credibility tend to produce very, very subjective things. When the sky's the limit, those Eagles are going to soar.

Yes, and again, it becomes extremely difficult to determine which of those things are in fact "very, very subjective" since we don't know the objective truth to begin with.

Look, it works like this;

Republicans want a small all-powerful government i.e. a Dictatorship.

Democrats want a large all-powerful government i.e. a Communist state.

I probably would've voted Libertarian, but some liberals make me so furious that I'm voting for Bush just to cancel one of their votes out. Petty? Hell yeah.

I hear ya. Pretty much what I am doing.

That argument has already been made (see above), and of course I can only predicate my opinions of you based on your posts, but if you admit to the "principle governing your statement", you confess to your ignorance, as I have duly pointed out. While there may be attacks that pertain to you personally, they only do so insofar as they relate to your own statements. I'm hardly saying that you treat your mother badly, or that you smell like potatoes. Stop attempting to (falsely) appeal to fairness and reasonability when you refuse to entertain those same standards.

Firstly and most importantly, when have I ever failed to "entertain fairness and reasonability". I expected my first post to be shot down immediately and quite welcome it. My views are far from popular and are obviously not shared by yourself, but that fact does not make them ignorant. I have heard your arguments and will discuss them below, but if anyone is being unfair or unreasonable it is the person who lauched a small personal attack before attacking the actual arguments in a later post.

They have a word for people who assume that ideas in conflict with their own are inherently wrong and/or ignorant. That word is bigot, which you used so eloquently above to describe myself (which I will again confirm is an accurate statement).

Does acknowledging my own prejudices make me more ignorant than the man who does not? Everyone is a bigot and a sexist and a hater in some time, place, or pattern. I am not ashamed to admit it, and I am quite secure in my belief that the world would be a better place with me and with people like me in it who are not afraid to admit such things.

"To say you know when you know, and to say you do not when you do not, that is knowledge." -Confucius

On to the arguments, which is why we are really here.

There is zero warrant in this argument. Hopefully, when you tell me you want an argument, you'll be inclined to not respond with these types of arguments against what I'm about to say.

Come now, I thought the bald half of his head line was great. Have a little appreciation for oratory.

Who is he intimidating? Did he intimidate Saddam in 1991? Did he intimidate Osama bin Laden in 2001? It seems to me that the worst terrorist attack in American history happened on his "watch", and yet you now think that his "toughness" is an asset? Oh, because the Iraqi insurgents sure have stopped fighting us for fear of Cheney.

I can guarantee you all of the above would be intimidated by Dick Cheney if they were locked in a room alone with him. As for Saddam, specifically, I can sure as hell bet you he isn't very fond of Cheney at this moment in time. You seem to be missing the point entirely. Cheney (as well as Bush) is, and always will be, an infinite many times more intimidating then John Kerry or John Edwards. Democrats, and liberals in general, have a long history of cutting military spending and showing weakness with regard to deploying troops. Kerry is no exception. Sure democrats love to start little conflicts every now and then (i.e. Vietnam) but they don't have the balls to go all out and finish what they started, and no one should believe for one second that they are going to suddenly pull a 180 and thoughen up. When things get rough, liberals bring in a conservative and then criticize him for not getting them out of it fast enough.

Yes, and the same might have been able to be said of the SS. That made them wonderful people, right?

No they were horrible people, but very effective at what they did. I am also prefectly willing to argue that postwar Germany improved rather remarkably under the Nazis and Adolf Hitler, but I feel that would take up even more space then I already am. Let's just leave it at the fact that I believe someone in the position of the Vice President must be willing and able to order people to their deaths from one means or another.

1. The Halliburton comments were certainly not irrelevant. His business dealings with what the Bush administration has labelled the "axis of evil" are certainly relevant to his capacity to act in a way that is beneficial to the American people as a whole, and not just certain corporate interests.

You don't seem to realize that corporate interests ARE American interests. Halliburton is just another American corporation that employs thousands of Americans. Our position as the world's only superpower is more a result of our economic domination than anything else. Big "evil" corporations everywhere help to keep our position secure. Hell, McDonalds would probably fit the average definition of an evil corporation. I mean, come on, they're everywhere and I just don't trust that red and yellow clown (Have you ever played M.C. Kids? Magic bag....)

2. And we're all so proud of his admirable restraint in not killing someone on live television. Repressing that evil nature is such a huge step in being a good public servant - in case you need the argument made explicitly, an aptitude toward senseless violence is precisely the opposite of what would make a good public servant, yet you seem to laud his violent urges. That is silly.

Have a sense of humor. You'll live longer.

Cheney wasn't toying with Edwards. Cheney was ATTEMPTING to toy with Edwards. While I was hardly floored by Edwards' performance, there were very, very few places were he looked taken aback. The first reference to Halliburton had Cheney looking like Dubya during the first debate. His response was weak, ineffectual, and conceded way too much of the initiative to Edwards.

He was not taken back by the Halliburton comment, he was frankly annoyed by it. Apart from finding the topic irrelevant (as I do) he knew, and acknowledged, that he would not have enough time to properly vindicate himself (which Edwards probably knew also). He did as best he could by pointing people out to a website that would provide impartial evidence to exonerate himself, but I have a strange inkling not very many people checked it out.

I, and apparently a majority of the people watching the debate, happen to disagree with your assessment. I've been involved in competitive debate in high school and college for over 6 years, and Cheney was far from the debate god you would wish for him to be. Instead of engaging in hyperbole, make some warrants that back up these claims.

Ok, for starters how about the small breach of debating ettiquette in which Edwards went back about 5 or 6 times to defend himself on a previously discussed and resovled issues, while saving his final 20 seconds for a sound byte? How about the inane stupid comments he made like malpractice insurance not being responsible for a rise in medical rates? That one dropped my jaw. It also hit me personally. One of the reasons I am no longer a pre-med student is because the field of medicine no longer possesses the financial stability that it used to. I have known many doctors who have lost their practices because they could no longer afford to pay their liability insurance, despite having never been accused of malpractice themselves.

This, even if not intended literally, is still an example of ignorance and sexism. Many polls have shown womyn to be more concerned primarily with terrorism than men. Additionally, they have shown that womyn are split between voting for Kerry and Bush. If womyn thinking Edwards was cute cost Bush half the votes, they wouldn't be evenly divided, now would they?

A little confused about womyn with a "y", but regardless the fact remains that women have always considered physical attractiveness and it has remained a strong and significant factor when voting. The fact that it is SO close among women is partially due to the fact that Bush and Kerry are rated about the same in levels of attractiveness. In elections where it is not rated as closey (Bush/Clinton, Clinton/Dole, Nixon/Kennedy, &c), women tend to not be so split.

Arguments like this are precisely why our leaders keep lying to us, keep forcing unnecessary violence on us, and create an atmosphere of hatred and fear. Your call to encourage that type of thinking only serves to further an agenda that will get more Americans (and people all over the world) killed in futile acts of retribution.

I for one do not wish to or expect to be told everything. There are things that a nation must do in order to defend itself that the people need not know and that people in governement must be in a position to deny. The atmosphere of hate that you describe as been festering since the dawn of time and it will exist until the end of man. It is just another example of the hatred of the weak and unprivaleged directed against a percieved oppressor. It is the same force that drove our own revolution and will drive future ones. You can believe that some day people will become too "civilized" to engage in such barbaric behavior if you wish, but I for one will not avert my eyes to it. It will not go away.

The only way we can triumph as a people and a race (the entire human race) is to be tested by our enemies and to meet the measure. The human race is forged and purified like steel in the fires of a great furnace. If we shatter under the stress, we will be replaced by something better. That is the way of the world.

We must choose the path of Achilles and Alexander.

I respectfully await your response.

Ok, here goes. I apologize for forgetting the password for the first name I signed up as. It was unintentional. Any posts I might have made under that first name, where wholly inline with any that I make under this one.
That was very big of you biff. THough you almost said it in a roundabout way. You are forgiven, go and sin no more.

[QUOTE=Incertonia]CBS's was the most prominent one I saw last night, and it had Edwards winning 41-28 with 31% calling it a tie. That's 72% who said Edwards at least tied the debate--not exactly a beating.QUOTE]

You really didn't just quote CBS did you? :eek:

CBS News FLash --- ... --- Edwards wins debate polls in landslide!
Poll taken at the Dan Rather institute for journalistic standards.

Documents anyone? Not exactly the most reputable news agency these days.

CBS was really the only so called "Major News Network" to see it that way.

Fox News Flash --- ... --- Bush wins 1st Presidential Debate! ;)

He was not taken back by the Halliburton comment, he was frankly annoyed by it. Apart from finding the topic irrelevant (as I do) he knew, and acknowledged, that he would not have enough time to properly vindicate himself (which Edwards probably knew also). He did as best he could by pointing people out to a website that would provide impartial evidence to exonerate himself, but I have a strange inkling not very many people checked it out.

You would have to count yourself in that catagory.

The computer I'm on is moving too slow to provide a link, so I'll have to summarize and hope you follow your own advice.

If you had gone to the website that Cheney cited, you would have ended up on a information page for Pheonix Online, an online college. However, if you go to factcheck.org, an honest but still fun mistake, you'll find on the top of the list of things that didn't add up in the debate was Cheney's citing of factcheck.org. While factcheck.org does indeed have an article that refutes claims that Cheney currently benefits from Halliburton contracts, it does not exonerate him from the claims that Edwards was leveling.


Sorry to cherry pick, but I check that site a lot.

Firstly and most importantly, when have I ever failed to "entertain fairness and reasonability". I expected my first post to be shot down immediately and quite welcome it. My views are far from popular and are obviously not shared by yourself, but that fact does not make them ignorant. I have heard your arguments and will discuss them below, but if anyone is being unfair or unreasonable it is the person who lauched a small personal attack before attacking the actual arguments in a later post.

The fact that you hold views contrary to my own does not make them ignorant. But the warrants (or lack thereof) do indicate ignorance, as I illustrate when I point out that they are factually incorrect, which I will go on to demonstrate below. Additionally, you've conceded the fact that the scope my claim of your ignorance is limited to only your post (remember? I didn't say you're an evil person or that you kick dogs) and it's applications in the context of this discussion. If you choose to see that as a personal attack, that's your prerogative, but I hardly think it appropriate. For instance, you insist on spelling the word "privilege" with an a ("privalege"). This, too, is ignorance. It's ignorance of the proper spelling of a word. While hardly an argument in and of itself, the ignorance you display with regard to other arguments IS relevant to this discussion.

They have a word for people who assume that ideas in conflict with their own are inherently wrong and/or ignorant. That word is bigot, which you used so eloquently above to describe myself (which I will again confirm is an accurate statement).

You are absolutely correct in your definition of bigot. However, I never assume your ideas are inherently wrong. I find it difficult to believe that you could convince me of their correctness given the level of study and analysis that I've done, but the possibility is there. I've often admitted my mistakes and fallacies in online (as well as "real life") forums, but as I've done my homework, it takes more than an oratorical ploy to make me do so. If you wish to view this as bigotry, it's obviously your right to do so, but you would be incorrect as well.

Does acknowledging my own prejudices make me more ignorant than the man who does not? Everyone is a bigot and a sexist and a hater in some time, place, or pattern. I am not ashamed to admit it, and I am quite secure in my belief that the world would be a better place with me and with people like me in it who are not afraid to admit such things.

Have I ever behaved in a prejudiced manner? Of course. Do I find it acceptable? Not at all. Do I feel that we do more harm by holding fast to our prejudice and hatred? Most definitely. Hence, I meet your standard of admitting to my own shortcomings while not accepting those shortcomings as inevitable or necessary or good. You may be quite secure in that belief, but I hardly think that it's because of evidentiary support. Recognizing our fallacies and failings IS important, as you say. But striving to move past them is what causes us to evolve and make the world a better place.

"To say you know when you know, and to say you do not when you do not, that is knowledge." -Confucius

When a man's knowledge is sufficient to attain, and his virtue is not sufficient to enable him to hold, whatever he may have gained, he will lose again. - Confucius

Come now, I thought the bald half of his head line was great. Have a little appreciation for oratory.

While parts of it may be oratorically interesting, you asked me to respond to your "arguments". I was making sure this wasn't what you considered an argument.

I can guarantee you all of the above would be intimidated by Dick Cheney if they were locked in a room alone with him. As for Saddam, specifically, I can sure as hell bet you he isn't very fond of Cheney at this moment in time.

I can guarantee you that I wouldn't be intimidated by him if I was in a room with him, and I sincerely doubt that Osama bin Laden would be even the slightest bit concerned with Cheney, particularly given that bin Laden was CIA trained, and Cheney is constantly fighting health problems.

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Cheney (as well as Bush) is, and always will be, an infinite many times more intimidating then John Kerry or John Edwards.

I see. Which is why 9/11 happened in the Bush administration and not the Clinton adminstration? Tell me again why you suppose this to be true instead of providing some sort of standard for evaluating this statement? Is it just because "that's the way you see the world"?

Democrats, and liberals in general, have a long history of cutting military spending and showing weakness with regard to deploying troops. Kerry is no exception. Sure democrats love to start little conflicts every now and then (i.e. Vietnam) but they don't have the balls to go all out and finish what they started, and no one should believe for one second that they are going to suddenly pull a 180 and thoughen up. When things get rough, liberals bring in a conservative and then criticize him for not getting them out of it fast enough.

This would be an example of the ignorance I was referencing above. Cutting military spending (presumably) means decreases in total budget appropriations for defense (if you have some other bizarre notion of what you mean by it, please feel free to correct me). However, your claim that Democrats have a "long history" of cutting military spending is problematic for the following reasons:

1962-1963 - John Kennedy (D) - defense spending up $1 billion
1963-1969 - Lyndon Johnson (D) - defense spending up $29 billion
1970-1974 - Richard Nixon (R) - defense spending down $3 billion
1974-1977 - Gerald Ford (R) - defense spending up $18 billion
1977-1981 - Jimmy Carter (D) - defense spending up $58 billion
1981-1989 - Ronald Reagan (R) - defense spending up $141 billion
1989-1993 - George Bush (R) - defense spending down $16 billion
1993-2001 - Bill Clinton (D) - defense spending up $4 billion

Now, perhaps you'd like to tell me which of these Democratic presidents was the one responsible for "cutting military spending". Or perhaps you'd like to qualify that statement now. Maybe you'd even like to completely change it and talk about how Nixon and George Bush have given Republicans a history of cutting defense spending. :rolleyes:

As for the rest of the "arguments" in this, how about citing some evidence and not just repeating the same spin that we've been hearing for years and years?

No they were horrible people, but very effective at what they did. I am also prefectly willing to argue that postwar Germany improved rather remarkably under the Nazis and Adolf Hitler, but I feel that would take up even more space then I already am. Let's just leave it at the fact that I believe someone in the position of the Vice President must be willing and able to order people to their deaths from one means or another.

I believe that a vice president should be striving to never HAVE to send any Americans to their death. The fact that he is willing to do so to me indicates an inability to find ways of existing that don't require the blood of our servicemembers. I, for one, am not so sanguine about the loss of life, particularly when it only serves the political agenda of the current administration.

You don't seem to realize that corporate interests ARE American interests. Halliburton is just another American corporation that employs thousands of Americans. Our position as the world's only superpower is more a result of our economic domination than anything else. Big "evil" corporations everywhere help to keep our position secure. Hell, McDonalds would probably fit the average definition of an evil corporation. I mean, come on, they're everywhere and I just don't trust that red and yellow clown (Have you ever played M.C. Kids? Magic bag....)

Corporate interests are included WITHIN the broader context of American interests, but they are not the entirety of American interests. I realize full well that corporations provide jobs. I also realize that corporations, in their attempt to maximize profit margins for their stockholders (which are very rarely the people working those thousands of jobs at the bottom), some of which is included by not providing their workers with living wages. This is hardly admirable, and while such business practices may help company owners become ever-wealthier, that again is not the same as being the interests of all Americans.

As for our "domination" being the result of the economy, then you'd have to be okay with cutting military spending if the economy is growing, right? Because we supplant our overreliance on hard power with economic trade leverage and coercion. Yet you still seem to think that Democrats like Clinton hurt our security when he made us more economically powerful than we were. This would show how your arguments have tension between them. Please try to remain consistent.

Have a sense of humor. You'll live longer.

My sense of humor is fine. The concern is appreciated, though.

He was not taken back by the Halliburton comment, he was frankly annoyed by it. Apart from finding the topic irrelevant (as I do) he knew, and acknowledged, that he would not have enough time to properly vindicate himself (which Edwards probably knew also). He did as best he could by pointing people out to a website that would provide impartial evidence to exonerate himself, but I have a strange inkling not very many people checked it out.

The website he pointed out (which was mispointed out...it is factcheck.org, not factcheck.com) doesn't, in fact, vindicate him (at least it didn't when I had last checked it...it is currently down, probably due to all the hits that it is getting after the debate). It answers some of the claims made by Kerry (namely that Cheney accepted money from Halliburton WHILE VP...this isn't true. He did accept money days before being inaugurated, however). What it didn't answer were the claims of Haliburton doing business with Iran, Libya and Iraq while they were supporting terrorists, nor did the website answer the claims that they are currently under investigation for bribing foreign officials. I've been using factcheck.org for information for a long time, and it is quite non-partisan (being critical of both Kerry and Bush). It's not necessarily perfect, but I highly doubt you will find any perfect source of information.

As for the annoyance claim, that is ridiculous. Yes, Cheney would undoubtedly have had Edwards killed at that moment if he could. But Cheney's hesitation didn't come from annoyance. It came from an inability to defend himself against the argument, which I found rather interesting, given that he surely (since he "schooled" him so badly with his debate godliness) should have been prepared for the line of argumentation.

Ok, for starters how about the small breach of debating ettiquette in which Edwards went back about 5 or 6 times to defend himself on a previously discussed and resovled issues, while saving his final 20 seconds for a sound byte?

Cheney was certainly using the same tactics. Additionally, I hardly think Edwards did an amazing job. He, however, was certainly not schooled by Cheney.

How about the inane stupid comments he made like malpractice insurance not being responsible for a rise in medical rates? That one dropped my jaw.

I'm surprised that you missed Edwards' argument. He responded by saying that malpractice insurance was only responsible for half of a percent of the increases in medical costs, while the overall medical costs have gone up over 12%. Hence, malpractice is hardly the root cause of increased medical costs. I haven't independently verified those figures yet, but it's hardly as if Edwards just sat there and ignored the argument.

It also hit me personally. One of the reasons I am no longer a pre-med student is because the field of medicine no longer possesses the financial stability that it used to. I have known many doctors who have lost their practices because they could no longer afford to pay their liability insurance, despite having never been accused of malpractice themselves.

I'm sorry to hear that malpractice has affected you adversely. That still doesn't mean that Edwards' dropped the argument.

A little confused about womyn with a "y", but regardless the fact remains that women have always considered physical attractiveness and it has remained a strong and significant factor when voting. The fact that it is SO close among women is partially due to the fact that Bush and Kerry are rated about the same in levels of attractiveness. In elections where it is not rated as closey (Bush/Clinton, Clinton/Dole, Nixon/Kennedy, &c), women tend to not be so split.

Yes, if you assume that the only reason womyn vote is based on attractiveness, you might be correct. However, that is the sexist part of your argument that I call you out on. It seems fairly clear that historically, Republicans have been much more zealous about cutting programs that help single mothers, trying to have abortion laws overturned, and other things that have repelled a lot of womyn voters. And until you post some reasonably reliable statistical evidence, I'm going to keep saying that your argument is predicated on the idea that womyn can't think about policy, they have to vote on attractiveness. This argument is laughable, in my opinion.

I for one do not wish to or expect to be told everything. There are things that a nation must do in order to defend itself that the people need not know and that people in governement must be in a position to deny.

Then we differ here. The government's actions should ALWAYS reflect the will of the people. That is a founding principle of our government, and your path seems much more inclined to a Stalinist state (perhaps you admire his efficiency as well) than a representative democracy (insofar as our government can be called that today).

The atmosphere of hate that you describe as been festering since the dawn of time and it will exist until the end of man. It is just another example of the hatred of the weak and unprivaleged directed against a percieved oppressor.

I disagree. I think that the statement "the cry of the poor may not always be just, but until you've heard it, you cannot know what true justice is" sums up my feelings on this fairly well. An atmosphere of hate will only breed more hate, and yes, inequality and oppression will cause more hatred. Which is why instead of seeking to structuralize and formalize that hierarchy, we should be working to create equality for everyone. Playing on people's fears and hatred to justify a corporatocracy will never stop that hate.

However, assuming that we can't change it is precisely why your world view leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. I've seen how things can change. We have a long, long way to go, but change is possible. The problem is when people act like it's always going to be that way...that is why it continues.

It is the same force that drove our own revolution and will drive future ones. You can believe that some day people will become too "civilized" to engage in such barbaric behavior if you wish, but I for one will not avert my eyes to it. It will not go away.

Hatred didn't drive our revolution. There are plenty of examples of revolutions not driven by hatred. Ghandi, MLK, even Jesus/Mohammed/Lao-Tze/Buddha...there are plenty of examples (whether real or just cultural fiction) of non-violent revolutions throughout history. Your inability to parse those into your Weltanschauung is just another reason why you should be striving to improve yourself, not stagnate.

The only way we can triumph as a people and a race (the entire human race) is to be tested by our enemies and to meet the measure. The human race is forged and purified like steel in the fires of a great furnace. If we shatter under the stress, we will be replaced by something better. That is the way of the world.

The problem with you is that you think the enemies are an external "other" that can always be confronted. If we bomb and kill an innocent civilian in Iraq, who is the enemy? When they respond in turn and kill Americans, who is the enemy? The enemy is violence. The enemy is hatred. In that sense, you're right. The only way we can triumph IS to pass the test our enemy presents to us. Passing that test requires us to eschew hatred and set aside our fear, expand our scope of responsibility, and work for the betterment of ALL of us, not just a few.

Lies and Misrepresentations

Senator Edwards: Yes, Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 commission has said it. Your own secretary of state has said it. And you’ve gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There’s not.

Vice President Cheney: The senator’s got his fact wrong. I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Vice President Cheney: It strikes me that that is absolutely the heart of what needs to be done from the standpoint of education. It’s also important as we go forward in the next term we want to be able to take what we’ve done for elementary education and move it into secondary education. It’s working. We’ve seen reports now of a reduction in the achievement gap between majority students and minority students. We’re making significant progress

Vice President Cheney: Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight. Turns out this isn't true at all There's even a picture
As I said, the list goes on... (Why not check the links that support the assertions on the website? Or would that defeat the whole purpose of calling it not factual?)

Unless you are using a different Meet the press transcript than the one I saw, he did not say there was a connection. He said that the Czech's had a unconfirmed report, and "we just don't know".

About education... you use an opinion piece to claim Cheney lied? Heck, we all write opinion pieces every day, but they can't be used as proof someone else lied. Besides, the opinion piece you quoted didn't even address the issue at hand. Nice spin on that one Steph.

As for your third accusation that Cheney "lied"... do you have any proof that the 2 of them met? Being at the same event at the same time doesn't mean they met by any stretch of the imagination. To meet someone doesn't mean that they saw someone from across the room. It means to be introduced formally or informally, and to have had words between them. The picture shows them in the same area, but it doesn't show them having met.

I have a picture with me and Tom Cruise in it. He was onboard the Enterprise filming Top Gun when I was there. I was in the crowd on the flight deck. We never met.

You are showing yourself to be quite the spin doctor. Perhaps you could get a job with the Kerry campaign.

Unless you are using a different Meet the press transcript than the one I saw, he did not say there was a connection. He said that the Czech's had a unconfirmed report, and "we just don't know".

About education... you use an opinion piece to claim Cheney lied? Heck, we all write opinion pieces every day, but they can't be used as proof someone else lied. Besides, the opinion piece you quoted didn't even address the issue at hand. Nice spin on that one Steph.

As for your third accusation that Cheney "lied"... do you have any proof that the 2 of them met? Being at the same event at the same time doesn't mean they met by any stretch of the imagination. To meet someone doesn't mean that they saw someone from across the room. It means to be introduced formally or informally, and to have had words between them. The picture shows them in the same area, but it doesn't show them having met.

I have a picture with me and Tom Cruise in it. He was onboard the Enterprise filming Top Gun when I was there. I was in the crowd on the flight deck. We never met.

You are showing yourself to be quite the spin doctor. Perhaps you could get a job with the Kerry campaign.

So you can be at all the Senate meetings and still not meet?
Then Cheney's comment has no basis and thus he looks foolish for saying it.

Why is he saying it then? To slander Edwards, attack the audience because he can't support the facts.

When you have truth on your side, you tell it. When you have facts on your side, yu say it. When you have neither you attack the audience. Its a tried and true method most politicians fall for.

But Edwards played a cleaner debate than Cheney. That is why its a win for him.

So you can be at all the Senate meetings and still not meet?
Then Cheney's comment has no basis and thus he looks foolish for saying it.

Why is he saying it then? To slander Edwards, attack the audience because he can't support the facts.

When you have truth on your side, you tell it. When you have facts on your side, yu say it. When you have neither you attack the audience. Its a tried and true method most politicians fall for.

But Edwards played a cleaner debate than Cheney. That is why its a win for him.
Im sorry, I had trouble following what it was about my post you were responding to.

It's entirely possible that Cheney presided over the Senate meetings and not ever met Edwards. If they had never had words, then they have never met. It's pretty simple really.

What did Cheney slander Edwards about? Having met the man? If you think that's slander, you need to thicken up your skin a bit.

You seem to indicate that Cheney attacked the audience. Im sorry, but so far I haven't seen where he did that.

As for what poloticians do.... well ask yourself what trial lawyers do. The present "evidence" and convince the jury that it's the truth, never mind if it is the truth or not. Edwards said "$200 billion and counting". He knew this was wrong (or he should have, since it became a Republican talking point after Kerry made the same mistake). Even when corrected by Cheney that it was $120 billion, he rebutted it and said that it was $200 billion and counting. He didn't care if it was the truth or not, just what he could make the audience believe.

As for a cleaner debate... I just don't see it that way.

Im sorry, I had trouble following what it was about my post you were responding to.

It's entirely possible that Cheney presided over the Senate meetings and not ever met Edwards. If they had never had words, then they have never met. It's pretty simple really.

What did Cheney slander Edwards about? Having met the man? If you think that's slander, you need to thicken up your skin a bit.

You seem to indicate that Cheney attacked the audience. Im sorry, but so far I haven't seen where he did that.

As for what politicians do.... well ask yourself what trial lawyers do. The present "evidence" and convince the jury that it's the truth, never mind if it is the truth or not. Edwards said "$200 billion and counting". He knew this was wrong (or he should have, since it became a Republican talking point after Kerry made the same mistake). Even when corrected by Cheney that it was $120 billion, he rebutted it and said that it was $200 billion and counting. He didn't care if it was the truth or not, just what he could make the audience believe.

As for a cleaner debate... I just don't see it that way.

Attack the audience is attacking your opponent. Sorry for the confusion lol

Its possible Cheney never met Edwards but its possible Cheney was asleep when Edwards was there. At least that seems to be same logic you are using.

I said

So you can be at all the Senate meetings and still not meet?
Then Cheney's comment has no basis and thus he looks foolish for saying it.

Since Cheney tried to say he never met Edwards implying that Edwards never there. But as you said its okay to not meet when there is you never talk to each other.
Your words:

To meet someone doesn't mean that they saw someone from across the room. It means to be introduced formally or informally, and to have had words between them. The picture shows them in the same area, but it doesn't show them having met

Thus as you say as long as they didn't formally or informally introduce each other they did not meet. Both are possible in Senate.

Slander is slander, it doesn't matter if you don't care.

And Edwards was not wrong. He said expected Costs and not current costs if I'm not mistaken. If you see where he said otherwise quote him.

Oh so attacking Edwards personally was not more dirty?

OK i have it right here on video. Cheney SWORE EDWARDS IN for the opening of the 108th Congress. LIAR!
http://pbs-newshour.virage.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=pbs-newshour&template=play220asf.html&query=&squery=%2BClipID%3A3+%2BVideoAsset%3Apbsnh010703&inputField=undefined&ccstart=1918612&ccend=2348014&videoID=pbsnh010703
I have no doubt you can somehow disqualify this "meeting", but yet there it is.

Attack the audience is attacking your opponent. Sorry for the confusion lol

Its possible Cheney never met Edwards but its possible Cheney was asleep when Edwards was there. At least that seems to be same logic you are using.

I said

Since Cheney tried to say he never met Edwards implying that Edwards never there. But as you said its okay to not meet when there is you never talk to each other.
Your words:



Thus as you say as long as they didn't formally or informally introduce each other they did not meet. Both are possible in Senate.

Slander is slander, it doesn't matter if you don't care.

And Edwards was not wrong. He said expected Costs and not current costs if I'm not mistaken. If you see where he said otherwise quote him.

Oh so attacking Edwards personally was not more dirty?
From http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html :
You know, we've taken 90 percent of the coalition causalities. American taxpayers have borne 90 percent of the costs of the effort in Iraq.

And we see the result of there not being a coalition: The first Gulf war cost America $5 billion. We're at $200 billion and counting.
It's the "and counting" that's telling. It means that the current costs are $200 billion and going up from there. Which is a lie. Might have been a mistake (as it could have been a mistake when Kerry used it) but he said it a second time, after Cheney pointed out he was wrong.

As for the attacking Edwards personally, I just don't see it happening. In fact I recall a telling point:
Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.
Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.
Cheney gave up his 90 seconds to thank Edwards for his kind words.

I don't see the attacks.

Attack the audience is attacking your opponent. Sorry for the confusion lol

How does attacking one opponet, attacking the audience? In that case, both sides are guilty using this line of logic.

I don't know how you arrived here but I am curious in knowing.

You are showing yourself to be quite the spin doctor. Perhaps you could get a job with the Kerry campaign.

This is a typical response I have grown use to from you. You seem (as do others)unable to face the cold hard truth. The cold hard truth are the facts we know for fact! What do we know for fact you ask? Lets examine that.

1) Saddam had no WMD

2) The administration had knowledge that this was the case before the war. As stated in many Intel reports that have come out since. We at the very least know there was debate on the subject, to which the administration decided to ignore and go with the "shaky" Intel that supported what they had wanted to do for years. (Many hawks that now hold positions of power in the administration)

3) We know for fact that Cheney has toured the circuit of just about every Sunday morning talk show making assertions that even his own State Department and Rumsfeld as well as Bush have now agreed were wrong.

4) We know that Cheney (chicken-hawk) and friends in the think tank PNAC (who's policy became reality after 9/11 was in writing for over 10 years) seen their chance and took it.

5) We know for fact that at least 5 countries we can name off the top of our heads had more to do with state sponsor terrorism then Iraq. (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Chechnya) and I'm sure we could name more.

6) We know for a fact that this administration has changed it's rational for going to war with Iraq at least 4 times. Perhaps more.

7) We know for a fact that the invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism, this supported by the report that came out this year that they either "mistakenly" fudged or out right tried to lie to the American people, one or the other!

Really, I could go on.. but, wouldn't it be wasted on you? I think so. Lets stick to what we know for a fact. Sure, lots of people have pointed out that a large number of countries "believed" Saddam had WMD, note how none of them invaded Iraq. This rest solely on your current administration's shoulders. If that alone is not enough to send these guys packing, then I don't know what kind of banana republic you expect the rest of the world to believe you're running. Yes, I say banana republic because in most of the world's view, Bush wasn't even elected!

OK i have it right here on video. Cheney SWORE EDWARDS IN for the opening of the 108th Congress. LIAR!
http://pbs-newshour.virage.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=pbs-newshour&template=play220asf.html&query=&squery=%2BClipID%3A3+%2BVideoAsset%3Apbsnh010703&inputField=undefined&ccstart=1918612&ccend=2348014&videoID=pbsnh010703
I have no doubt you can somehow disqualify this "meeting", but yet there it is.
Contrary to popular belief, I do not have an axe to grind. I just dislike when people make accusations about others, and back it up with flimsy or false information.

Your video shows Cheney swearing in Edwards. Never said he didn't. What Im trying to get at, is what does "meet" mean to you? If it means simply seeing someone else, then yes, Cheney was wrong with his statement. That's not what it means to me, and I would suggest that it is not what it means to Cheney either. It means to have a discourse.

I am in a picture with Tom Cruise. He spoke to me. I was in a big group of sailors on the flight deck during the filming of the "you can fly my wing anytime" scene of Top Gun, he spoke to the group as a whole. I have never met Tom Cruise however.

It's the "and counting" that's telling. It means that the current costs are $200 billion and going up from there. Which is a lie. Might have been a mistake (as it could have been a mistake when Kerry used it) but he said it a second time, after Cheney pointed out he was wrong.
Well...you're completely wrong...

Edwards said that the war on terror as a whole cost $200 billion and counting.
Cheney said that the Iraq war by it self (as a part of the war on terror, part of the $200 billion) cost $120 billion.

So, they could both be absolutely correct. They're not contradicting each other. As far as the "and counting" comments goes...if the war isn't over, the spending isn't over. Edwards doesn't imply that we are currenctly increasing funding for the war, he merely implies that it will most definitely take more money before the war is over.

This is a typical response I have grown use to from you. You seem (as do others)unable to face the cold hard truth. The cold hard truth are the facts we know for fact! What do we know for fact you ask? Lets examine that.

1) Saddam had no WMD

2) The administration had knowledge that this was the case before the war. As stated in many Intel reports that have come out since. We at the very least know there was debate on the subject, to which the administration decided to ignore and go with the "shaky" Intel that supported what they had wanted to do for years. (Many hawks that now hold positions of power in the administration)

3) We know for fact that Cheney has toured the circuit of just about every Sunday morning talk show making assertions that even his own State Department and Rumsfeld as well as Bush have now agreed were wrong.

4) We know that Cheney (chicken-hawk) and friends in the think tank PNAC (who's policy became reality after 9/11 was in writing for over 10 years) seen their chance and took it.

5) We know for fact that at least 5 countries we can name off the top of our heads had more to do with state sponsor terrorism then Iraq. (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Chechnya) and I'm sure we could name more.

6) We know for a fact that this administration has changed it's rational for going to war with Iraq at least 4 times. Perhaps more.

7) We know for a fact that the invasion of Iraq has increased terrorism, this supported by the report that came out this year that they either "mistakenly" fudged or out right tried to lie to the American people, one or the other!

Really, I could go on.. but, wouldn't it be wasted on you? I think so. Lets stick to what we know for a fact. Sure, lots of people have pointed out that a large number of countries "believed" Saddam had WMD, note how none of them invaded Iraq. This rest solely on your current administration's shoulders. If that alone is not enough to send these guys packing, then I don't know what kind of banana republic you expect the rest of the world to believe you're running. Yes, I say banana republic because in most of the world's view, Bush wasn't even elected!
Not a one of these you posted answers the questions I raised about your post.

Come to expect from me? I would say the same about your post. You post "facts" but do not back them up. You result is extremely immature responses to people who question your opinion. You back up your assertions with flimsy evidence, and say that since you have a poli sci degree, your opinion counts for more than someone who doesn't.

You have an opinion. I once thought it was a well thought out opinion, but Im now more inclined to believe it's an opinion steeped in rhetoric.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/Vote2004/vp_debate_poll_041006.html

Read it and weep CH!
" VP Debate First Presidential Debate
Democrats 31% 35
Republicans 38 35
Independents 27 24"

Biased sample...

What Im trying to get at, is what does "meet" mean to you?

This is getting dangerously close to asking for the definition of "is" :rolleyes:

" VP Debate First Presidential Debate
Democrats 31% 35
Republicans 38 35
Independents 27 24"

Biased sample...
Even so...only 70% of Edwards supporters said Edwards won where 80% of Cheney supporters said Cheney won. If it would have been a perfectly even audience, Cheney still would have been declared the winner by the audience based off those percentage. I'm voting for Kerry/Edwards, and I think Cheney won the debate...

Not a one of these you posted answers the questions I raised about your post.

Every thing I just posted is FACT.. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Look into it if you really care about the truth. You don't seem to. You are far more caught up in rhetoric then I could ever be.

This is getting dangerously close to asking for the definition of "is" :rolleyes:
So, answer the question... what does it mean to you to "meet" someone?

Even so...only 70% of Edwards supporters said Edwards won where 80% of Cheney supporters said Cheney won. If it would have been a perfectly even audience, Cheney still would have been declared the winner by the audience based off those percentage. I'm voting for Kerry/Edwards, and I think Cheney won the debate...
Well, except for the fact that there are more Democrats then Republicans and Independents (who broke strong Edwards) are underrepresented. I think it would have been a tie/handed to Edwards if the sample was right...

So, answer the question... what does it mean to you to "meet" someone?

Sorry, you're not going to get me to play this game of semantics with you. Cheney lied. End of story.

Well, except for the fact that there are more Democrats then Republicans and Independents (who broke strong Edwards) are underrepresented. I think it would have been a tie/handed to Edwards if the sample was right...
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean...but I understand what that link said...

And what it basically said is that if there were 20 people in the audience, 10 dems, 10 republicans, Cheney would have won by a vote of 11-9. (8 republicans + 3 democrats for Cheney vs 7 democrats + 2 republicans for Edwards) based off the percentages.

Sorry, you're not going to get me to play this game of semantics with you. Cheney lied. End of story.
If I say "This is the kind of maturity you can expect from NationStates moderators" would I get an official warning?

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean...but I understand what that link said...

And what it basically said is that if there were 20 people in the audience, 10 dems, 10 republicans, Cheney would have won by a vote of 11-9. (8 republicans + 3 democrats for Cheney vs 7 democrats + 2 republicans for Edwards) based off the percentages.
2000 exit polls:
Democrat: 39%
Republican: 35%
Independant: 27%

So, it should be...8 dems, 7 reps, 5 indies.
So...7-1 Edwards, 6-1 Cheney, 3-2 Edwards. Edwards wins 11-9.
Or
7-1 Edwards, 7-0 Dick!, 3-2 Edwards. Tie. 10-10

2000 exit polls:
Democrat: 39%
Republican: 35%
Independant: 27%

So, it should be...8 dems, 7 reps, 5 indies.
So...7-1 Edwards, 6-1 Cheney, 3-2 Edwards. Edwards wins 11-9.
What the hell? This isn't an explanation. This is a few words thrown together with a bunch of numbers. You're not explaining where any of these numbers are coming from...and why would having more democrats in the audience make an unbiases decision as to who won?

If I say "This is the kind of maturity you can expect from NationStates moderators" would I get an official warning?

No, you won't. Do tell though how me not wanting to play his game is immature?

What the hell? This isn't an explanation. This is a few words thrown together with a bunch of numbers. You're not explaining where any of these numbers are coming from...and why would having more democrats in the audience make an unbiases decision as to who won?
Those are the party affiliations of 2000 presidential votes. Party representation. The numbers in the ABC poll should be like those 2000 exit poll numbers.

No, you won't. Do tell though how me not wanting to play his game is immature?
I'm talking about the "Cheney lied. End of story."

Contrary to popular belief, I do not have an axe to grind. I just dislike when people make accusations about others, and back it up with flimsy or false information.

Your video shows Cheney swearing in Edwards. Never said he didn't. What Im trying to get at, is what does "meet" mean to you? If it means simply seeing someone else, then yes, Cheney was wrong with his statement. That's not what it means to me, and I would suggest that it is not what it means to Cheney either. It means to have a discourse.

I am in a picture with Tom Cruise. He spoke to me. I was in a big group of sailors on the flight deck during the filming of the "you can fly my wing anytime" scene of Top Gun, he spoke to the group as a whole. I have never met Tom Cruise however.

Well, the statement was made during a comment regarding Edward's attendance at the Senate, and semed to be implying that Cheney had never run into Edwards at all up to that evening. At least, that seemed to be the implication given - and it has been proven incorrect.

As to what most people mean by "met", many would include simply having been introduced to somebody whether or not a discourse beyond "hello" had taken place. However I'm not going to try and define what everybody means by it, or even neccessarily what Cheney meant by it. but rather what I felt he was trying to imply in his statement during the debate. An implication that seems to have been false.

Those are the party affiliations of 2000 presidential votes. Party representation. The numbers in the ABC poll should be like those 2000 exit poll numbers.
If you have an audience the reflects the exit polls, you've still got bias, just it's in favor of you instead of the other guy. You can't eliminate bias, only balance it. Therefore, reflecting exit polls may be more realistic, but still biased.

I'm talking about the "Cheney lied. End of story."

Ok, if you prefer, Cheney was wrong?

If you have an audience the reflects the exit polls, you've still got bias, just it's in favor of you instead of the other guy. You can't eliminate bias, only balance it. Therefore, reflecting exit polls may be more realistic, but still biased.
No, its not biased if it represents the electorate...you see, you have to be settled to where the American public is.

No, its not biased if it represents the electorate...you see, you have to be settled to where the American public is.
It's still biased. The question of "who won?" is different from "who's policies do you prefer?"

I'm talking about the "Cheney lied. End of story."

From the very first answer of Cheney's during the debate:

"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."

That "relationship" has certainly been disputed in many reports over the past year but yet Dick still repeated it as gospel

He continued:

"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.

The biggest threat we faced today is the possibility of terrorists smuggling a nuclear weapon or a biological agent into one of our own cities and threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans."

Except that it has also been reported that the Administration knew BEFORE the invasion that any nuclear issues regarding IRaq were non-existant, and even al-baradi gave Iraq a clean bill of health regarding nuclear programs before the war as well. But still he raises the issue again with respect to Iraq.


Do you call those "honest" statements? Or do you just no like the word lie and prefer something less in-your-face like "factually-deficient"?

Ok, if you prefer, Cheney was wrong?
I prefer "Cheney made a good point, even though his statement wasn't exactly completely correct."

Contrary to popular belief, I do not have an axe to grind. I just dislike when people make accusations about others, and back it up with flimsy or false information.

Your video shows Cheney swearing in Edwards. Never said he didn't. What Im trying to get at, is what does "meet" mean to you? If it means simply seeing someone else, then yes, Cheney was wrong with his statement. That's not what it means to me, and I would suggest that it is not what it means to Cheney either. It means to have a discourse.

I am in a picture with Tom Cruise. He spoke to me. I was in a big group of sailors on the flight deck during the filming of the "you can fly my wing anytime" scene of Top Gun, he spoke to the group as a whole. I have never met Tom Cruise however.
Bullshit. Cheney meant that in the same way he made the other remark about
Edwards not being present to vote. He's made the same statement about Kerry numerous times. This time he took it a little to far and lied about it.

From the very first answer of Cheney's during the debate:

"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."

That "relationship" has certainly been disputed in many reports over the past year but yet Dick still repeated it as gospel

He continued:

"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.

The biggest threat we faced today is the possibility of terrorists smuggling a nuclear weapon or a biological agent into one of our own cities and threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans."

Except that it has also been reported that the Administration knew BEFORE the invasion that any nuclear issues regarding IRaq were non-existant, and even al-baradi gave Iraq a clean bill of health regarding nuclear programs before the war as well. But still he raises the issue again with respect to Iraq.


Do you call those "honest" statements? Or do you just no like the word lie and prefer something less in-your-face like "factually-deficient"?
I do believe we were only talking about "Cheney lied. End of story." in reference to having not met Edwards. I know there are other things that he had lied about, but it's not exactly a cut and dry, black and white as to whether or not he had met Edwards. It comes down to a question of semantics and one could easily argue either side of that position. There are other points however (like the ones I'm sure you pointed out, even though I haven't read your post yet) that he definitely lied about.

It comes down to a question of semantics and one could easily argue either side of that position. There are other points however (like the ones I'm sure you pointed out, even though I haven't read your post yet) that he definitely lied about.

Yeah he "met" him on three different occasions that we know of. I don't think it's Zep or I who is playing with semantics. Seriously.

I do believe we were only talking about "Cheney lied. End of story." in reference to having not met Edwards. I know there are other things that he had lied about, but it's not exactly a cut and dry, black and white as to whether or not he had met Edwards. It comes down to a question of semantics and one could easily argue either side of that position. There are other points however (like the ones I'm sure you pointed out, even though I haven't read your post yet) that he definitely lied about.

Well, I don't know about you, but I would certain include the interaction required during the process of swearing someone in as meeting the criteria that I would include under the definition of "met".

I'm not taking sides. I'm merely pointing out that it's plausible that that isn't what Cheney considers having met a person and therefore it's not a something that Stephistan can issue a "Cheney lied" ultimatuum about. There are plenty of other things to call foul on Cheney for without having to pick a debatable one. Edwards doesn't exactly have an excellent attendance record, but I'd like to see it comparitively with other Senators. Once when I was in DC, I watch a 5 minutes session of the senate. There were like 15 senators there.

It's still biased. The question of "who won?" is different from "who's policies do you prefer?"
No, you have to have it weighted by parties or you won't get a proper sample of the US population.

I'm merely pointing out that it's plausible that that isn't what Cheney considers having met a person and therefore it's not a something that Stephistan can issue a "Cheney lied" ultimatuum about.

Now who's playing with semantics?

I'm not taking sides. I'm merely pointing out that it's plausible that that isn't what Cheney considers having met a person and therefore it's not a something that Stephistan can issue a "Cheney lied" ultimatuum about. There are plenty of other things to call foul on Cheney for without having to pick a debatable one. Edwards doesn't exactly have an excellent attendance record, but I'd like to see it comparitively with other Senators. Once when I was in DC, I watch a 5 minutes session of the senate. There were like 15 senators there.


Well. in the context of Cheney using the "we never" met as a slur on Edward's attendance because Cheney claims to be there presiding every Tuesday, can we point out the other clear lie in that statement?

Here is a list of the Senate's Acting Presidents for every Tuesday session for 2001.

January 30 - Enzi
February 6 - Chafee
February 13 - Chafee
February 27 - Allen
March 6 - Burns
March 13 - Reid
March 20 - DeWine
March 27 - Chafee
April 3 - Smith
April 24 - Chafee
May 1 - Chafee
May 8 - Chafee
May 15 - Frist
May 22 - Chafee
June 5 - Enzi
June 12 - Byrd
June 19 - Carper
June 26 - Bayh
July 10 - Nelson
July 17 - Clinton
July 24 - Byrd
July 31 - Stabenaw
September 25 - Wellstone
October 2 - Clinton
October 9 - Clinton
October 16 - Edwards!!!!!
October 23- Byrd
October 30 - Bingaman
November 13 - Murray
November 27 - Jeffords
December 4 - Stabenaw
December 11 - Carnahan
December 18 - Nelson

A reward to whoever finds a Tuesday in 2002, 2003 or 2004 that Dick Cheney fulfilled his duties as President of the Senate here:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

2002

Tue 1/29 - Nelson
Tue 2/5 - Kohl
Tue 2/12 - Stabenow
Tue 2/26 - Landrieu
Tue 3/5 - Edwards
Tue 3/12 - Landrieu
Tue 3/19 - Miller
Tue 4/9 - Cleland
Tue 4/16 - Reed
Tue 4/23 - Wellstone
Tue 4/30 - Nelson
Tue 5/7 - Miller
Tue 5/14 - Cleland
Tue 5/21 - Nelson
Tue 6/4 - Durbin
Tue 6/11 - Corzine
Tue 6/18 - Dayton
Tue 6/25 - Landrieu
Tue 7/9 - Reed
Tue 7/16 - Corzine
Tue 7/23 - Reed
Tue 7/30 - Clinton
Tue 9/3 - Reed
Tue 9/10 - Corzine
Tue 9/17 - Reid
Tue 9/24 - Stabenow
Tue 10/1 - Miller
Tue 10/8 - Miller
Tue 10/15 - Reid
Tue 11/12 - CHENEY! -- WE HAVE A WINNER!
Tue 11/19 - Barkley (MN)

2003

Jan 7 *Cheney*
Jan 14 Stevens
Jan 22 Stevens
Jan 28 Stevens
Feb 4 Stevens
Feb 11 Stevens
Feb 25 Stevens
Mar 4 Stevens
Mar 11 Stevens
Mar 18 Stevens
Mar 25 Stevens
Apr 1 Stevens
Apr 8 Stevens
Apr 29 Stevens
May 6 Talent
May 13 Ensign
May 20 Alexander
June 3 Stevens
June 10 Stevens
June 18 Murkowski
June 24 Coleman
July 8 Stevens
July 15 Stevens
July 22 Chaffee
July 29 Stevens
Sept 2 Stevens
Sept 9 Stevens
Sept 16 Stevens
Sept 23 Stevens
Sept 30 Sununu
Oct 21 Stevens
Oct 28 Stevens
Nov 4 Stevens
Nov 11 Warner
Nov 18 Stevens
Dec 9 Stevens

2004

1/20 - Stevens
1/27 - Enzi
2/3 - Stevens
2/10 - Stevens
3/2 - Stevens
3/9 - Hagel
3/16 - Sununu
3/23 - Stevens
3/30 - Ensign
4/6 - Cornyn
4/20 - Stevens
4/27 - Chambliss
5/4 - Stevens
5/11 - Stevens
5/18 - Stevens
6/1 - Stevens
6/8 - Hutchinson
6/15 - Stevens
6/22 - Allard
7/6 - Burns
7/13 - Stevens
7/20 - Enzi
9/7 - Stevens
9/14 - Chafee
9/21 - Enzi
9/28 - Stevens
10/05 - Stevens


So - when was Edwards have been supposed to have run into Cheney if it was Cheney that was never there? Looks like Edwards attendance record was better than Cheneys!

So, the totality of the statement and what it was trying to convey was clearly "factually deficient".

I call that a lie.

Feel free to use your own definition......

No, you have to have it weighted by parties or you won't get a proper sample of the US population.
A proper sample of the US population would be a biased opinion if you're asking "who won," because then, you've got more people of one party than the other, and people tend to say the winner is the one they agree with most. I don't agree with most of the Bush/Cheney opinions, but I recognize the fact that Cheney out-debated Edwards just like Kerry out-debated Bush. If you're asking the question "Who's platform do you agree with most?" then you need a sampling that reflects the US population, but that's not the question.

Well. in the context of Cheney using the "we never" met as a slur on Edward's attendance because Cheney claims to be there presiding every Tuesday, can we point out the other clear lie in that statement?

Here is a list of the Senate's Acting Presidents for every Tuesday session for 2001.

**snippity**

So - when was Edwards have been supposed to have run into Cheney if it was Cheney that was never there?
That is a much better argument.

A proper sample of the US population would be a biased opinion if you're asking "who won," because then, you've got more people of one party than the other, and people tend to say the winner is the one they agree with most. I don't agree with most of the Bush/Cheney opinions, but I recognize the fact that Cheney out-debated Edwards just like Kerry out-debated Bush. If you're asking the question "Who's platform do you agree with most?" then you need a sampling that reflects the US population, but that's not the question.
And? You're oversampling republicans in this anyway, so you'd have bias in it.

That is a much better argument.

:)

And? You're oversampling republicans in this anyway, so you'd have bias in it.
To remove bias from the question of "who won the debate" you have to have an equal split.
What's a better sport, football or basketball?
If you ask an sample of 11 bastetball fans and 9 football fans, basketball wins...because of bias.

To remove bias from the question of "who won the debate" you have to have an equal split.
What's a better sport, football or basketball?
If you ask an sample of 11 bastetball fans and 9 football fans, basketball wins...because of bias.
Yes, but if you want to get a sample of who wins as far as the United States population is concerned, you have to weight it by parties. And you can't have this nonsense of the Republicans being overrepresented (again)

Yes, but if you want to get a sample of who wins as far as the United States population is concerned, you have to weight it by parties. And you can't have this nonsense of the Republicans being overrepresented (again)
The American population is not qualified to judge a debate. Your point is moot.

Republicans- 35 (28-5-1 Cheney)
Democrats- 35 (24-8-2 Edwards)
Independents- 24 (10-7-7 Edwards)

So in the end...35 Edwards votes, 37 Cheney votes, and 17 tied. Margin of error? No one won.

The American population is not qualified to judge a debate. Your point is moot.
So you admit that the polling process is useless, as are the debate polls overall?

Your point is moot then.

The American population is not qualified to judge a debate. Your point is moot.


So why have them? Or elections for that matter?

So you admit that the polling process is useless, as are the debate polls overall?

Your point is moot then.
Choosing whose policies you want and who you agree with more is different then choosing who is a better debater. Choosing who you agree with is a very personal decision and any one is qualified to make that decision so long as they understand the positions that the individual candidate takes. Choosing who is a better debater is a technical question and the average American is more likely going to choose the debater who they agree with more rather than the debater who made the better presentation.

Choosing whose policies you want and who you agree with more is different then choosing who is a better debater. Choosing who you agree with is a very personal decision and any one is qualified to make that decision so long as they understand the positions that the individual candidate takes. Choosing who is a better debater is a technical question and the average American is more likely going to choose the debater who they agree with more rather than the debater who made the better presentation.
Then we would see a purely partisan split no matter what we do.

So why have them? Or elections for that matter?
So the American public can see the candidates go head to head and learn more about each individual candidate. The debate isn't useless, but choosing a winner is pretty useless.

GW was elected Governor of Texas....twice. That gives him BOTH since as Governor he dealt with Mexico on many levels. Edwards did not even complete 2/3 of his term as Senator. Elected in 1998 he has done NOTHING for those who elected him.

As for the cuts Cheney was calling for....that was in 1991, AFTER the fall of the Soviet Union. Not 1984. It was Kerry who fought Reagan and the military buildup that brought the Soviet Union down. Kerry was way off on that as it turned out.

A couple of points for you, Biff:

1) G.W. Bush has run in 3 elections, including the current one. He was elected governor of Texas once. Also, the governor of Texas has three powers: convene the Legislature, sign or veto bills, and appoint people to boards. It is safe to say that the government of Texas runs quite in spite of the governor, who is largely ceremonial in that state. Similarly, any dealings he had with Mexico as governor were largerly ceremonial.

2) Edwards is in his sixth year of his Senate term. This makes him, at the VERY least, as equally quailified as George W. Bush was when he ran for President, and one could argue that a Senator who sat on the Intelligence Committee, like Edwards, has much more experience at the same point in his career as Bush had.

3) Kerry's votes to cut defense systems were in 1991 based on Cheney's recommendations. Not 1984.

4) The contention that Reagan and the military buildup brought the Soviet Union down is and always has been fatuous - the Soviet Union's economy would have collapsed by the mid '90s anyways. At best, Reagan accellerated the process. Indeed, the contention that the Soviet Union was a threat to the U.S. is, indeed, a matter of debate. The Soviet Union was only an enemy because zealous idealogues in the U.S. decided they couldn't abide Communism. This last sentence is, of course, an oversimplification, and a matter for another debate.

Opal is right, that was a better argument. However it didn't address the issue at hand. Did Cheney meet Edwards. I don't know. You don't know either. You point at pictures and senate records but nothing points at the men having met.

Perhaps it was a bit of "dirty" politics to use it to bring into question Edwards record in the Senate. Reading the transcript it was indeed used for that.

But as has been pointed out by others, dirty politics are what politicians do. Both sides.

But it still doesn't address the issue that Cheney lied.

For Zep's answer about the WMD's and Iraq's sponsoring of terrorism... how can you deny that Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism?




Oh, Im still waiting for Steph's response "Zeppistan so pwned you!"

Opal is right, that was a better argument. However it didn't address the issue at hand. Did Cheney meet Edwards. I don't know. You don't know either. You point at pictures and senate records but nothing points at the men having met.

Perhaps it was a bit of "dirty" politics to use it to bring into question Edwards record in the Senate. Reading the transcript it was indeed used for that.

But as has been pointed out by others, dirty politics are what politicians do. Both sides.

But it still doesn't address the issue that Cheney lied.

For Zep's answer about the WMD's and Iraq's sponsoring of terrorism... how can you deny that Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism?




Oh, Im still waiting for Steph's response "Zeppistan so pwned you!"


The full text of Cheney's diatribe around his meeting Edwards:

You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.

Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.


The intent of what he was trying to convey was clear. That Edwards wasn't doing his job in comparison to what Cheney did. The fact that he lied about being there performing his duties presiding over the Senate on Tuesdays, and clearly had encountered Edwards on AT LEAST three occasions caught on tape make that an extremely misleading statement. I call it missleading to the point of being deliberately untrue - i.e. a lie. So does my wife.



You are also as bad at trying to spin things as Cheney is. I was very specific in pointing out Cheney repeating oft-refuted allegations of Saddam-al qaeda links, and of implying a supposed nuclear threat from Iraq. I did NOT discuss any general "support of terror" because his payments to families of Hamas bombers is well known.

Having a valid statement to make does not excuse repeating the invalid ones by the people running the country.


Nor is deliberately targetting my wife a great way to try and engage in adult discourse with me.

Im sorry Zep, I didn't make it clear.... I was agreeing with you about Cheney's slur of Edwards Senate record. I hadn't read the transcript on that part yet, just what was posted in this thread.

Im not trying to spin anything... rather most of my posts are attempts to point out spins by others.
Saddam-9/11 links have been discussed and refuted.
Saddam-Al Queda links have been discussed but not yet refuted. There is still debate, and doubt whether or not there were links. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/238dkpee.asp
http://www.rantingprofs.com/rantingprofs/2003/10/links_to_al_que.html

As for the targetting of Steph... I appologize for my comment about her becoming a spin doctor. That was uncalled for.

You are right on both counts actually. Both sides got good shots in but in the end, Cheney won this debate if only by a small margin.



Forgot one thing Zeppi! Bush was Governor in the state of Texas and had to deal with Mexico so he does have foreign affairs experience.
As evidenced by his thoughtful border policy w/Mexico AND his greencard extensions for work! As well as not doing anything to get Mexico to step up production in terms of oil so maybe the Americas might have a tad less of a hard time right now!

Because he started his campaign in 2002 and has been absent from the Senate pretty much since then. He is known in his home state as "Senator Gone."
So, Biff, do you need a Three's Company-era laugh track here?
How bout you do a little research personally instead of parroting the mailing list highlights, specifically your "Senator Gone" quote. It shouldn't surprise you that every other POS rightwing fatmouth likes to jibe to that like adolescents to a Britney Spears choreography. Zip your hat now.
Show some class or at least some originality.

Can you tell me exactly where you DON'T have to sort out the crap from the real information? Because there's no purely objective source of information. If you're afraid to do that work, then you're not an American who's interested in finding truth.
Amen to that!
And someone here thinks that there's a "credibility issue" with CBS polls and little question for ABC polls but MSNBC polls are "not scientific" ..... m'kay, waiting for the other shoe of sensibility to drop here ...

I voted 37 times this morning! No one here locks their workstations. I just copy and pasted the URL into a Notepad document on our common network share, and voted to my heart's content! (I get in very early to deal with our tape backups). I may go around, clear everyone's cache and do it again tomorrow...

(Read: online poll = joke)
Hahaha!

My God! How can you peeople not see it!?!

Dick Cheney is about the most awesome man alive right now. Every other post seems to be about how he's old and has no personality. Cheney has more personality in the bald half of his head then most people have in their entire bodies.

THE MAN IS TERROR AND INTIMIDATION INCARNATE. He is the closest thing we have right now to the Nixonesque, tough ol' SOB professional politician. You know that he could easily have you killed and think absolutely nothing of it. Its just business. A couple of times, usually after an irrelevant Haliburton comment, you could see his eyes light up, the inner fire rage, and that sinister grin emerge. He probably had to struggle to keep himself from jumping over the table and strangling that young upstart senator to death with his bear hands. Me and my friends all agree that he probably secretly recieves his sustanance by eating children.

However, instead of killing Edwards and drinking his sweet, delicious bone marrow, Cheney took the lad to school. If you did not notice that Cheney was toying with Edwards the whole time you must have been watching another debate. On countless occasions, Cheney landed the debate equivalent of a "bitch slap" on Edwards. Cheney had names and numbers to combat everything that Edwards said. You could just see the pain and hatred within Cheney because for some reason the world had forced him to condescend and speak with this man who knows less than 1/100 of what he knows for almost 2 hours. The 1st term senator with an inactive membership was simply no match for one of the most seasoned politicans in America.

However, women think Edwards is cute so there goes about 50% of the vote.

Dick Cheney is exactly the type of man I want in office. He's the type of man who understands how the system works and knows how to work the system. He does things simple and dirty, and gets the job done. He is the type of man who can do all the necessary, "evil", work that is required to keep this country running and running strong with no appreciation at all from the people who use the very privalges he helps to provide to condemn and criticize him. He'll just keep on going like a machine despite all of you, with only the occasional evil grin and flash of light in his eyes.
Hahahaha!

Cheney took Edwards to the woodpile on this one.

Edwards....2 years in the Senate, 1/3 of one term

Just does not cut it....and does not qualify him to be President. Hopefully enough people saw Edwards for what he is and we will avoid the trainwreck that will be the Kerry administration.
Actually, to be fair, Edwards has spent 6 years in the Senate. He was elected in 1998, and the conventional wisdom in North Carolina is that he was running for President because he knew full-well he would NOT be re-elected to the Senate this year.

He did have his name as sponsor in a few bills, though none passed the Senate. However many he sponsored, it was a number larger than a certain Senator from Massachusetts sponsored in 20 years.

Actually, to be fair, Edwards has spent 6 years in the Senate. He was elected in 1998, and the conventional wisdom in North Carolina is that he was running for President because he knew full-well he would NOT be re-elected to the Senate this year.

He did have his name as sponsor in a few bills, though none passed the Senate. However many he sponsored, it was a number larger than a certain Senator from Massachusetts sponsored in 20 years.

This is for sure!

I will probably be using the above quote someday....;)
For its integrity? Or, again, to exemplify that you are allowing your integrity to be relatively equal in substance to parroting and mindless mimickry?
Note: Senator Gone ....
I'll hold you to yours too, like i said I would.
Carry on ...

Really? I have NO credibility....yet you have just now...for the first time....admitted that you have a bias. Amazing....

However....all is forgiven.

As for cheating...I have not played the "game" in awhile. So that is a non-issue.
So you think that declaring something a non-issue means that although it did happen in the past, on part of yourself and your judgment, it doesn't have any relevance to the consequences following and the overall objective achieved?
If so, i can think of an administration that would love to have that ideology be gulped down by the populace any time that a discriminating little fact may come up.
Forgiveness for whose transgression?

There is zero warrant in this argument. Hopefully, when you tell me you want an argument, you'll be inclined to not respond with these types of arguments against what I'm about to say.



Who is he intimidating? Did he intimidate Saddam in 1991? Did he intimidate Osama bin Laden in 2001? It seems to me that the worst terrorist attack in American history happened on his "watch", and yet you now think that his "toughness" is an asset? Oh, because the Iraqi insurgents sure have stopped fighting us for fear of Cheney.



Yes, and the same might have been able to be said of the SS. That made them wonderful people, right?



1. The Halliburton comments were certainly not irrelevant. His business dealings with what the Bush administration has labelled the "axis of evil" are certainly relevant to his capacity to act in a way that is beneficial to the American people as a whole, and not just certain corporate interests.

2. And we're all so proud of his admirable restraint in not killing someone on live television. Repressing that evil nature is such a huge step in being a good public servant - in case you need the argument made explicitly, an aptitude toward senseless violence is precisely the opposite of what would make a good public servant, yet you seem to laud his violent urges. That is silly.



Yet another behavior that should surely inspire confidence in all of us.



Cheney wasn't toying with Edwards. Cheney was ATTEMPTING to toy with Edwards. While I was hardly floored by Edwards' performance, there were very, very few places were he looked taken aback. The first reference to Halliburton had Cheney looking like Dubya during the first debate. His response was weak, ineffectual, and conceded way too much of the initiative to Edwards.



Never mind the fact that many of those names and numbers were contrived, misrepresentations, or outright lies. I could spout off numbers off the top of my head that supported whatever I wanted to claim, but that's far from landing a "bitch slap". That's called being a liar.



I, and apparently a majority of the people watching the debate, happen to disagree with your assessment. I've been involved in competitive debate in high school and college for over 6 years, and Cheney was far from the debate god you would wish for him to be. Instead of engaging in hyperbole, make some warrants that back up these claims.



This, even if not intended literally, is still an example of ignorance and sexism. Many polls have shown womyn to be more concerned primarily with terrorism than men. Additionally, they have shown that womyn are split between voting for Kerry and Bush. If womyn thinking Edwards was cute cost Bush half the votes, they wouldn't be evenly divided, now would they?



Arguments like this are precisely why our leaders keep lying to us, keep forcing unnecessary violence on us, and create an atmosphere of hatred and fear. Your call to encourage that type of thinking only serves to further an agenda that will get more Americans (and people all over the world) killed in futile acts of retribution.

As for the "privalges", Cheney himself hasn't provided me with any privileges. That's a fun thing for you to get to claim, but it has absolutely no basis in reality. In fact, I would argue that because of the fearmongering in the war on terror, my civil liberties and rights have been diminished. The country isn't any better off (and I think is significantly worse off) than it was 4 years ago, and no amount of ridiculous fiction on your part will change that.



More of the same unwarranted ranting. I've answered this already.
Kapow!

Actually, to be fair, Edwards has spent 6 years in the Senate. He was elected in 1998, and the conventional wisdom in North Carolina is that he was running for President because he knew full-well he would NOT be re-elected to the Senate this year.

He did have his name as sponsor in a few bills, though none passed the Senate. However many he sponsored, it was a number larger than a certain Senator from Massachusetts sponsored in 20 years.
More than 57? In six years, two of which were spent on the campaign trail? That Edwards must have been a busy fella. Because that's the number of pieces of legislation that Kerry was a co-sponsor on that passed during his time in the Senate.

The fact that you hold views contrary to my own does not make them ignorant. But the warrants (or lack thereof) do indicate ignorance, as I illustrate when I point out that they are factually incorrect, which I will go on to demonstrate below. Additionally, you've conceded the fact that the scope my claim of your ignorance is limited to only your post (remember? I didn't say you're an evil person or that you kick dogs) and it's applications in the context of this discussion. If you choose to see that as a personal attack, that's your prerogative, but I hardly think it appropriate. For instance, you insist on spelling the word "privilege" with an a ("privalege"). This, too, is ignorance. It's ignorance of the proper spelling of a word. While hardly an argument in and of itself, the ignorance you display with regard to other arguments IS relevant to this discussion.



You are absolutely correct in your definition of bigot. However, I never assume your ideas are inherently wrong. I find it difficult to believe that you could convince me of their correctness given the level of study and analysis that I've done, but the possibility is there. I've often admitted my mistakes and fallacies in online (as well as "real life") forums, but as I've done my homework, it takes more than an oratorical ploy to make me do so. If you wish to view this as bigotry, it's obviously your right to do so, but you would be incorrect as well.



Have I ever behaved in a prejudiced manner? Of course. Do I find it acceptable? Not at all. Do I feel that we do more harm by holding fast to our prejudice and hatred? Most definitely. Hence, I meet your standard of admitting to my own shortcomings while not accepting those shortcomings as inevitable or necessary or good. You may be quite secure in that belief, but I hardly think that it's because of evidentiary support. Recognizing our fallacies and failings IS important, as you say. But striving to move past them is what causes us to evolve and make the world a better place.



When a man's knowledge is sufficient to attain, and his virtue is not sufficient to enable him to hold, whatever he may have gained, he will lose again. - Confucius



While parts of it may be oratorically interesting, you asked me to respond to your "arguments". I was making sure this wasn't what you considered an argument.



I can guarantee you that I wouldn't be intimidated by him if I was in a room with him, and I sincerely doubt that Osama bin Laden would be even the slightest bit concerned with Cheney, particularly given that bin Laden was CIA trained, and Cheney is constantly fighting health problems.



I see. Which is why 9/11 happened in the Bush administration and not the Clinton adminstration? Tell me again why you suppose this to be true instead of providing some sort of standard for evaluating this statement? Is it just because "that's the way you see the world"?



This would be an example of the ignorance I was referencing above. Cutting military spending (presumably) means decreases in total budget appropriations for defense (if you have some other bizarre notion of what you mean by it, please feel free to correct me). However, your claim that Democrats have a "long history" of cutting military spending is problematic for the following reasons:

1962-1963 - John Kennedy (D) - defense spending up $1 billion
1963-1969 - Lyndon Johnson (D) - defense spending up $29 billion
1970-1974 - Richard Nixon (R) - defense spending down $3 billion
1974-1977 - Gerald Ford (R) - defense spending up $18 billion
1977-1981 - Jimmy Carter (D) - defense spending up $58 billion
1981-1989 - Ronald Reagan (R) - defense spending up $141 billion
1989-1993 - George Bush (R) - defense spending down $16 billion
1993-2001 - Bill Clinton (D) - defense spending up $4 billion

Now, perhaps you'd like to tell me which of these Democratic presidents was the one responsible for "cutting military spending". Or perhaps you'd like to qualify that statement now. Maybe you'd even like to completely change it and talk about how Nixon and George Bush have given Republicans a history of cutting defense spending. :rolleyes:

As for the rest of the "arguments" in this, how about citing some evidence and not just repeating the same spin that we've been hearing for years and years?



I believe that a vice president should be striving to never HAVE to send any Americans to their death. The fact that he is willing to do so to me indicates an inability to find ways of existing that don't require the blood of our servicemembers. I, for one, am not so sanguine about the loss of life, particularly when it only serves the political agenda of the current administration.



Corporate interests are included WITHIN the broader context of American interests, but they are not the entirety of American interests. I realize full well that corporations provide jobs. I also realize that corporations, in their attempt to maximize profit margins for their stockholders (which are very rarely the people working those thousands of jobs at the bottom), some of which is included by not providing their workers with living wages. This is hardly admirable, and while such business practices may help company owners become ever-wealthier, that again is not the same as being the interests of all Americans.

As for our "domination" being the result of the economy, then you'd have to be okay with cutting military spending if the economy is growing, right? Because we supplant our overreliance on hard power with economic trade leverage and coercion. Yet you still seem to think that Democrats like Clinton hurt our security when he made us more economically powerful than we were. This would show how your arguments have tension between them. Please try to remain consistent.



My sense of humor is fine. The concern is appreciated, though.



The website he pointed out (which was mispointed out...it is factcheck.org, not factcheck.com) doesn't, in fact, vindicate him (at least it didn't when I had last checked it...it is currently down, probably due to all the hits that it is getting after the debate). It answers some of the claims made by Kerry (namely that Cheney accepted money from Halliburton WHILE VP...this isn't true. He did accept money days before being inaugurated, however). What it didn't answer were the claims of Haliburton doing business with Iran, Libya and Iraq while they were supporting terrorists, nor did the website answer the claims that they are currently under investigation for bribing foreign officials. I've been using factcheck.org for information for a long time, and it is quite non-partisan (being critical of both Kerry and Bush). It's not necessarily perfect, but I highly doubt you will find any perfect source of information.

As for the annoyance claim, that is ridiculous. Yes, Cheney would undoubtedly have had Edwards killed at that moment if he could. But Cheney's hesitation didn't come from annoyance. It came from an inability to defend himself against the argument, which I found rather interesting, given that he surely (since he "schooled" him so badly with his debate godliness) should have been prepared for the line of argumentation.



Cheney was certainly using the same tactics. Additionally, I hardly think Edwards did an amazing job. He, however, was certainly not schooled by Cheney.



I'm surprised that you missed Edwards' argument. He responded by saying that malpractice insurance was only responsible for half of a percent of the increases in medical costs, while the overall medical costs have gone up over 12%. Hence, malpractice is hardly the root cause of increased medical costs. I haven't independently verified those figures yet, but it's hardly as if Edwards just sat there and ignored the argument.



I'm sorry to hear that malpractice has affected you adversely. That still doesn't mean that Edwards' dropped the argument.



Yes, if you assume that the only reason womyn vote is based on attractiveness, you might be correct. However, that is the sexist part of your argument that I call you out on. It seems fairly clear that historically, Republicans have been much more zealous about cutting programs that help single mothers, trying to have abortion laws overturned, and other things that have repelled a lot of womyn voters. And until you post some reasonably reliable statistical evidence, I'm going to keep saying that your argument is predicated on the idea that womyn can't think about policy, they have to vote on attractiveness. This argument is laughable, in my opinion.



Then we differ here. The government's actions should ALWAYS reflect the will of the people. That is a founding principle of our government, and your path seems much more inclined to a Stalinist state (perhaps you admire his efficiency as well) than a representative democracy (insofar as our government can be called that today).



I disagree. I think that the statement "the cry of the poor may not always be just, but until you've heard it, you cannot know what true justice is" sums up my feelings on this fairly well. An atmosphere of hate will only breed more hate, and yes, inequality and oppression will cause more hatred. Which is why instead of seeking to structuralize and formalize that hierarchy, we should be working to create equality for everyone. Playing on people's fears and hatred to justify a corporatocracy will never stop that hate.

However, assuming that we can't change it is precisely why your world view leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. I've seen how things can change. We have a long, long way to go, but change is possible. The problem is when people act like it's always going to be that way...that is why it continues.



Hatred didn't drive our revolution. There are plenty of examples of revolutions not driven by hatred. Ghandi, MLK, even Jesus/Mohammed/Lao-Tze/Buddha...there are plenty of examples (whether real or just cultural fiction) of non-violent revolutions throughout history. Your inability to parse those into your Weltanschauung is just another reason why you should be striving to improve yourself, not stagnate.



The problem with you is that you think the enemies are an external "other" that can always be confronted. If we bomb and kill an innocent civilian in Iraq, who is the enemy? When they respond in turn and kill Americans, who is the enemy? The enemy is violence. The enemy is hatred. In that sense, you're right. The only way we can triumph IS to pass the test our enemy presents to us. Passing that test requires us to eschew hatred and set aside our fear, expand our scope of responsibility, and work for the betterment of ALL of us, not just a few.
You rock.

Sorry, you're not going to get me to play this game of semantics with you. Cheney lied. End of story.
But the play's the thing!
TheOneRule is probably (benefit of doubt) merely acting out the acute difference in debating tactics between repubs and dems, advocating repubs, in the face of factual inaccuracy and semantic supposition! Hear, hear! Bravo and a round for the crowd!
Yay for public (forum) theater!

Ok, if you prefer, Cheney was wrong?
NOOOOO!!!!!! OMG! DON'T PANDER!!! NO!!!!!!!
*slumps, sobs*
;)

Now who's playing with semantics?
So is Opal Isle surrogating for TheOneRule now?
Seems like the administration's tactics ....
TheOneRule should be shouldering this .... anything on that being's part to clarify? Or just sit back and not answer .... characteristic?

So is Opal Isle surrogating for TheOneRule now?
Seems like the administration's tactics ....
TheOneRule should be shouldering this .... anything on that being's part to clarify? Or just sit back and not answer .... characteristic?
Concidering I was off line for most of it... I try to shoulder my own responsibility when Im here.

If you read further, rather than just reply to each post as you come to it, you would see that Zepp and I did have a discourse... and I acknowledged that Cheney did engage in dirty politics to insinuate that Edwards was never in the Senate.

I also appologized for calling his wife a spin doctor.