Thread: VP Debate

Fuck the debate. Playoff baseball was on.

Cheney put in a great performance, no doubt about it. However, John Edwards landed a few good blows too. In the words of an undecided voter Ohio, "They both bashed each other pretty good." - some of the polls reflect that sentiment this morning.

Looking forward to Round 3 on Friday.

Originally Posted by redspy

Cheney put in a great performance, no doubt about it. However, John Edwards landed a few good blows too. In the words of an undecided voter Ohio, "They both bashed each other pretty good." - some of the polls reflect that sentiment this morning.

Looking forward to Round 3 on Friday.

I agree with this. I doubt very many minds were changed. My daughter liked Edwards (she's 13) so I think there is somthing to his appeal to women. She commented over and over how much better he was than Kerry.

If the Dem's had picked Edwards they would be in a much better posistion right now as was evidenced by the debate last night. Edwards was prepared to get slamed over his poor attendance in the senate and responded with Dick's voting records in perfect style. Dick's voting record on the environment, global warming, education, prescription drug plans, health care for the average Joe Blow, and his other job at HalAbortion is not what I want as my leader. Sorry DG but if ya go on content than the edge goes to the Edwards camp. In the dirt slinging parts Dick came off looking ... well ... like a Dick. All pro big business at the expense of America's needs.

Dick rolled along blathering about the house of pancakes that the Dem's live in and that Kerry was a traitor in the '70s . What Dick did not do was explain how HIS crew would get out of Iraq without killing more Americans. He lied about the election process in Iraq as though it was a stable and solid period of growth for those involved. I just about did a back flip when he tried to compare this election to the one held back when Ronnie was King ... the one where he and Ollie North sold weapons to Iran against Congressional orders and gave the money to the Contras to overthrow their legally ... elected by the people ... government. The Iran-Contra Affair is part of Dick's legacy of illegal behind the scenes way of governing the people. Now he wants more time to do the same old same old.

Fuck that!

I will say though that the more I look at the peak oil issues the more I like a mid east strategy. I just want a way that does not involve our soldiers dying to contain the problem. Those of you who have a clue should look at bio-diesel for your diesel engine. Hey you will save a buck. Literally ... per gallon of fuel used you will pay $1 less with no cost for conversion of your engine. What I mean is that there is no conversion needed at all ... none. Just use biodiesel and save money. Easy?

Lets not forget the lie about all those new jobs they have ctreated ... we need to create 150,000 new jobs a month to keep up with the population growth. Do the math ... we are at a neg job growth under BushCo.

Originally Posted by Pepper

I agree with this. I doubt very many minds were changed. My daughter liked Edwards (she's 13) so I think there is somthing to his appeal to women. She commented over and over how much better he was than Kerry.

what does a 13 yr old know?

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

If the Dem's had picked Edwards they would be in a much better posistion right now as was evidenced by the debate last night. Edwards was prepared to get slamed over his poor attendance in the senate and responded with Dick's voting records in perfect style. Dick's voting record on the environment, global warming, education, prescription drug plans, health care for the average Joe Blow, and his other job at HalAbortion is not what I want as my leader. Sorry DG but if ya go on content than the edge goes to the Edwards camp. In the dirt slinging parts Dick came off looking ... well ... like a Dick. All pro big business at the expense of America's needs.

Dick rolled along blathering about the house of pancakes that the Dem's live in and that Kerry was a traitor in the '70s . What Dick did not do was explain how HIS crew would get out of Iraq without killing more Americans. He lied about the election process in Iraq as though it was a stable and solid period of growth for those involved. I just about did a back flip when he tried to compare this election to the one held back when Ronnie was King ... the one where he and Ollie North sold weapons to Iran against Congressional orders and gave the money to the Contras to overthrow their legally ... elected by the people ... government. The Iran-Contra Affair is part of Dick's legacy of illegal behind the scenes way of governing the people. Now he wants more time to do the same old same old.

Fuck that!

I will say though that the more I look at the peak oil issues the more I like a mid east strategy. I just want a way that does not involve our soldiers dying to contain the problem. Those of you who have a clue should look at bio-diesel for your diesel engine. Hey you will save a buck. Literally ... per gallon of fuel used you will pay $1 less with no cost for conversion of your engine. What I mean is that there is no conversion needed at all ... none. Just use biodiesel and save money. Easy?

Yeah he came out with guns slinging. I think too much so. He was on the defensive right off the bat. Yes he got in a few good ones, but you expect that from anyone in office. It's plain Bush/Cheaney has a better vision for foreign policy than Kerry/Edwards. The polls show that. Now on domestic isssues, I think it's a tossup.

Originally Posted by dg806

Where are all the liberals today?? Not much to say?

It was unusually quiet for a while.

Originally Posted by redspy

Looking forward to Round 3 on Friday.

Definitely looking forward to that. I'm hopin Bush learned from his mistakes. I'm sure you'll let me know if he doesn't!!


As far as the debate goes, I laughed my ass off when Cheney said "...tonight was the first time I met you..." That was without doubt the best slam of the night. Edwards had some pretty good punches in there though, too.

Edwards did lose his composure at one point after the moderator told him that he didn't answer the question he was asked. Following the next question, Edwards tried to say that Cheney didn't answer a question he was just asked... he looked like a whiny baby.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6187956/

Originally Posted by dg806

It's plain Bush/Cheaney has a better vision for foreign policy than Kerry/Edwards. The polls show that.

It's important to make a distinction here, according to the polls people think Bush/Cheney have a more effective policy on the issue of Iraq, not foreign policy across the board. Despite assertions from Kerry/Edwards their policy isn't that much different from the current administation's. Both of them didn't have the balls to be anti-war from the beginning like Howard Dean. Now they are paying the price of being inconsistent.

People are concerned about the fact we've damaged our relationships with our international allies - the fight again terrorism has to be a global effort. People are well aware of the fact that hatred for the US is at an all time high throughout the world. There is also concern about Iran's and North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and a perceived lack of action to address this.

Why do they even have vice-president debates?

"I'll do nothing, better!"
"No, I'll do nothing, better!"

Originally Posted by dg806

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6187956/

"I think John Edwards was busy delivering a stump speech all night, while Dick Cheney showed up as the trial lawyer. "

Very accurately describes last night.

From CNN.Com

Voters were split between the two candidates on poll questions about personal qualities, and they picked Bush as a stronger leader by a large margin.

He leads Kerry 51 percent to 44 percent on the question of who would do a better job in Iraq.

On who would do a better job against terrorism, Bush had 56 percent to Kerry's 39 percent.

On who is more honest and trustworthy, however, Bush trumped Kerry by 46 percent to 41 percent, and when asked who among the two candidates shares their values, voters chose Bush 49 percent to 45 percent for Kerry

And when it comes to who they think is the stronger leader, those polled favored Bush by 56 percent to 37 percent for Kerry.

Originally Posted by dg806

From CNN.Com

Voters were split between the two candidates on poll questions about personal qualities, and they picked Bush as a stronger leader by a large margin.

He leads Kerry 51 percent to 44 percent on the question of who would do a better job in Iraq.

On who would do a better job against terrorism, Bush had 56 percent to Kerry's 39 percent.

On who is more honest and trustworthy, however, Bush trumped Kerry by 46 percent to 41 percent, and when asked who among the two candidates shares their values, voters chose Bush 49 percent to 45 percent for Kerry

And when it comes to who they think is the stronger leader, those polled favored Bush by 56 percent to 37 percent for Kerry.

But he lost ground in the polls after the debate, which is more important I believe.

As for the VP debate, from what I saw it was a toss up, pretty much even. Both candidates came with what they were offering and that was good. unfortunately you don't elect a VP, so who cares?

Although I must add, everyone thought Cheney was going to strangle him so i thought he showed alot of constraint, although you could tell he was pissed
by his expression.

Those are post debate numbers.....he did loose a little.

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

I will say though that the more I look at the peak oil issues the more I like a mid east strategy. I just want a way that does not involve our soldiers dying to contain the problem. Those of you who have a clue should look at bio-diesel for your diesel engine. Hey you will save a buck. Literally ... per gallon of fuel used you will pay $1 less with no cost for conversion of your engine. What I mean is that there is no conversion needed at all ... none. Just use biodiesel and save money. Easy?

We need to shift right now to renewable sustainable sources. Not only will it help the environment, but it will keep the money in our own house. Especially here in Hawaii where 70% of our electricity is from imported oil, a place where the sun shines year round. If we started implementing solar hot water and grid inter-tie PV systems it would make more jobs and keep the money stirring within our land instead of to over-seas oil companies making it a more economically viable option.

Bio-diesel is great. All of these fast-food chains get rid of hundreds of gallons of this stuff daily, a little filtering and chemical additives and bam you have fuel for your car and you can munch down a super-sized fry knowing that after they cooked'em the oil is now running your vehicle.

Originally Posted by dg806

Those are post debate numbers.....he did loose a little.

As a side note, I don't really think Kerry killed in the pres debates. He won, but not by all that much. I think Bush's composure did him in more than anything else.

So him and Kerry will just sit back and let the terroists attack and not do anything.

so tell me then, when was the date that Iraq or Saddamm Hussein attacked us? I am dying to know.. oh wait.. thats right.. that didn't happen. what is it we are doing exactly to "right terrorosim other than making people take their shoes off at the airport? It certainly doesn't explain why we are in Iraq

The fact that Iraq violated UN sanctions for 14 years is reason enough.

Our, um hem, so called allies Germany and France didn't vote to go for one reason.

The oil for food program. I believe it will be proved that they made quite a bit of money off it, as well as some of the UN folks.

I just wanna say that it is good to see you on the boards Stick.

We are in Iraq to get them off of our oil ... how dare these people sit on our oil and actually charge us for it. Pffffft ...

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

We are in Iraq to get them off of our oil ... how dare these people sit on our oil and actually charge us for it. Pffffft ...

Shit Yeah!

Originally Posted by redspy

People are concerned about the fact we've damaged our relationships with our international allies - the fight again terrorism has to be a global effort. People are well aware of the fact that hatred for the US is at an all time high throughout the world. There is also concern about Iran's and North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and a perceived lack of action to address this.

Was hatred for us low before ?
If so, why did they do the 9/11 thing. They hated us before too. Look back over the last 10 years, they tried to blow up the World trade building in 93. They blew up army barracks and killed 200+, they blew up our embassy, they blew a hole in the USS Cole. What else am I leaving out ? There hatred for us as the infidel is not new.

Al Qaeda are starting to piss of other countries now too by attacking them. Russia (Putin) is now talking Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes too.

Originally Posted by gr81

so tell me then, when was the date that Iraq or Saddamm Hussein attacked us? I am dying to know.. oh wait.. thats right.. that didn't happen. what is it we are doing exactly to "right terrorosim other than making people take their shoes off at the airport? It certainly doesn't explain why we are in Iraq

The Clinton policy was to talk big a do nothing. Each time the rag heads attacked us, Clinton would wag his finger at them and say, "We are going to make you pay for this", and nothing would happen.

If you punched a kid and he never hit back, you would never worry about punching him again the next time you were pissed off at him. But if you punched him and he kicked your ass, then you would think twice about ever doing it again. isn't this kind of where we are now ? The last president wouldn't do anything, and this one is changing that.

Maybe Saddam was not directly linked to 9/11, but he definitely supports terrorism. He already pays 25,000 to each suicide bomber in Israel. He had the blow up vests stored in one of the schools. He had a airplane fuselage sitting on the ground to help train hijackers. If he had a nuke and knew he could blow it up over here, do you think he would have done it ?
Its not like the rag heads care if women or children get killed. They just want to kill as many as possible.

Do we wait for a whole bunch of people to die and shake our finger at them ?
Do we wait for them to kill our kids in schools or churches ?
Or do we go and try to get rid of the vermin before it spreads ?
Or have we waited to long already and it can't be stopped ?

Originally Posted by gr81

so tell me then, when was the date that Iraq or Saddamm Hussein attacked us? I am dying to know.. oh wait.. thats right.. that didn't happen. what is it we are doing exactly to "right terrorosim other than making people take their shoes off at the airport? It certainly doesn't explain why we are in Iraq

I never said Iraq in that statement. Terrorists could be any one though. We have to have an agressive stance toward these people. Like Milliman said, there was hatred before and always will be. Will we ever totally wipe them out? No...........but we sure can make them think twice before they do something. Look what happened with QADHAFI in Libya. Scared him shitless and he gave us all the nukes he had!

This was taken from kwyckemynd00, a guy at AM.com
This is a great post!


Honestly, this whole "Republicans love big Business" thing is just fucking retarded. It demonstrates just how out of touch (and plain ignorant if you ask me) most leftist/liberal democrats are. What fucking sense does it make for a political party--who needs votes to win elections--to favor only rich people and these large rich corporations? Why in the world would the favor only the top 2% (as the democrats often claim) when they need about 51% or so to win votes!!!! "We republicans like to make normal people poor and rich people richer, please vote for us!" Seriously, how fucking retarded is that? Please evaluate what you regurgitate when it comes from the left; if you do so, it probably won't make any sense and you'll keep from looking...well...kinda like an ass.

It's plain and simple:
Republicans are for big business and don't want to place ridiculous amounts of constraint on them b/c they create jobs.
Democrats are against big business because it makes some people rich while they want everybody's income to be more "equal" regardless of what work they do or how hard they worked to earn their money!
Republicans want true equality of races (i.e. get rid of affirmative action, stop profiling by race for school, gov't aid, etc. forms).
Democrats think minorities are stupid and have to give them lower standards and free money so they never have to work and the dems get votes.
Republicans want illegal immigration because they're greedy bastards and want cheap labor.
Democrats want illegal immigration because they can get more of them on welfare and other government programs so that they can get more voters to vote for them so they keep their freebies!
Republicans want tax breaks for everyone!
Democrats think the more you make, the more we take. Eventually everyone's equal, right? I think it's a crime that somebody--a Dr. for example--will spend 12 years in post HS education (that number includes residency) working his/her ass off, just so that the fucking socialists/communists in the democratic party can steal their money and give it to those who chose not to work hard and choose to live off of food stamps and welfare checks ('cuz it's free). Ppl. get to drop out of school, have kids like crazy, collect gov't freebies, and steal others' money all because....why?
Democrats want us to keep dumping money into public education, but the money is going to teachers who aren't performing and are just living off of their respective unions!
Republicans want to treat education like a business. Make is as efficient as possible, producing the best product, all while using as little waste (financially) as possible.
Democrats want gay marriage and push it via undercutting our legal system using POS lawyers and liberal crack-head judges to push their agenda w/out the people's vote or approval.
Republicans (true republicans) think it should be left of for state governments to decide, but too many religious fanatics are in charge, so we're not seeing this at the highest levels (bush).
Democrats pander to their lawyer special interests, screw hard working doctors over, drive up insurance costs, and eventualy the consumer eats it.
Republicans want to limit the awards for malpractic suits (because tons of them are unsubstantiated to begin with) and actually do something to stop this ridiculous fiasco from worsening.

I personally dont identify as "republican" but since everybody likes two party politics there's a party I can "tolerate" and a party I "loathe". You can figure out which is which.

Speaking of tolerance, the liberal democrats idea of tolerance is nothing short of facism. Not only do you have to "tolerate" you have to "accept" "love" and "keep your mouth shut about"...

All poor people are lazy, even that mother of four, who's husband died 6 months ago in Iraq, working as a nurse pulling 14 hour shifts so her kids can live in a better side of town and go to a better school even though the rent is twice as much as the slums she was raised in. Since her husband was pulled into active duty from his high paying job they took a significant income loss and bills started piling up. She was too proud to seek help but now she goes to the grocery store with her food stamps and this guy named DG behind her mutters, "Look at this fat ho, why'd she have 4 kid's if she can't afford to feed them, where does her money go on wine coolers and weed?"