View Full Version : John Edwards vs. Richard Cheney
Tomorrow is the first - and only, oddly enough - Vice Presidential debate, between Democrat John Edwards and Republican Richard Cheney. The debate will be held at Case Western Reserve in Cuyahoga Falls, OH - just outside of Ohio's third largest city, Cleveland.
John Edwards is a self-made millionaire who made his millions by debating. he's much like John Kerry in that sense. Richard Cheney, however, is sort of a grandfater-figure compared to Edwards, and is going to attack Edwards by saying that he doesn't have enough experience.
Does anyone have any predictions for a winner in this debate?
Personally, I feel that Edwards is going to come out of this one on top. You don't make millions by debating just to lose to a money-hungry fiend.
It'll be tough. As much as I'd love Edwards to come out victorious, Cheney has alot of experience in debating. Cheney is also a much more fierce person than Edwards, and for some reason toughness equates to votes with alot of Americans. If Edwards can stump Cheney (although unlikely), maybe with a question on Halliburton (a must-mention thing), Edwards may get the edge. I don't think this debate will have much impact on voting anyways.
Derek The Infamous
10-04-2004, 08:11 PM
Kerry's problem (to me) was that he was far too passive when he did the debate. If Edwards strikes hard and gets a lot of points across in a strong way, he could sway a lot of Bush voters.
However, something tells me that Cheney's experience is going to come into play this time around. He's been in politics for a long time and knows the way America works.
Hmm..this is going to be televised right? 9PM like the other debate?
ECU Tekkie
10-04-2004, 08:22 PM
Edwards is not near as experienced as Cheney is. Cheney will tear him to pieces. Bush lacked style in the debate last week, but not substanance. Cheney will beat Edwards in both, hands down.
Bush/Cheney '04
savetomorrow
10-04-2004, 08:50 PM
Cheney might have experience, but Edwards is a prosicutor that will probably tear Cheney to pieces if he talks about any doing with domestic issues or Iraq. John Kerry and John Edwards are a good team that will win over all these debates (last week was supposed to be Bush's strongest area) and possibly (lets have our fingers crossed) the elections. John Kerry is a great speaker/ veteran of war and John Edwards is a great speaker also and a lawyer. Bush on the other hand has gotten two DUIs (the other side of the legal spectrum), wasn't even supposed to be president and is the puppet of the Bush administration and Cheney is the puppeter.
Billionaires for Bush '04
Link04
10-04-2004, 10:08 PM
Anyone here ever see the Sloganator? :lol: "Billionares for Bush" reminded me of it. I love political satire.
Holiday
10-04-2004, 10:48 PM
i think that Edwards will win w/ all of his experience of beinga lawer. you cant make millions in that field w/o some skills. also i dont think that Cheney will be good for Bush at all. his views are different as Bush and he sometimes loses contact w/ his puppetiers(if you get what i mean) and says stuff that Bush doesnt agree w/(such as gay marraiges) so in some ways i dont think it will be good for Bush at all.
Originally posted by Boo@Oct 4 2004, 11:56 PM
no comment :mellow:
... Then don't post.
F-ck Casey
10-05-2004, 04:25 AM
I'm rooting for Edwards, actually. Even though I'm against Kerry.
Reason? I ####### hate Cheney. He just comes across as a pretentious, self-loving, egomaniac ####.
Originally posted by December@Oct 5 2004, 12:25 AM
I'm rooting for Edwards, actually. Even though I'm against Kerry.
Reason? I ####### hate Cheney. He just comes across as a pretentious, self-loving, egomaniac ####.
Congratulations! You drove the final name right into the coffin. (You can decide whose coffin it is.) That's exactly what Cheney is.
F-ck Casey
10-05-2004, 04:28 AM
I thought for a minute you were going to ban me :whistle:
Originally posted by December@Oct 5 2004, 12:28 AM
I thought for a minute you were going to ban me :whistle:
LOL.
Originally posted by Will+Oct 5 2004, 04:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Will @ Oct 5 2004, 04:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Boo@Oct 4 2004, 11:56 PM
no comment :mellow:
... Then don't post. [/b][/quote]
HA!
Originally posted by Boo+Oct 5 2004, 12:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Boo @ Oct 5 2004, 12:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Will@Oct 5 2004, 04:17 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Boo@Oct 4 2004, 11:56 PM
no comment :mellow:
... Then don't post.
HA! [/b][/quote]
I bet you think you're real cool, eh? Well, guess what? You're warned. Don't be a jackass.
Why did you warn me for that?
I'm done with this thread
Originally posted by Boo@Oct 5 2004, 12:36 AM
Why did you warn me for that?
I'm done with this thread
Because I told you not to post in the thread if you have nothing useful to say. A sock filled with sand and broken glass shards could've comprehended that better than you did.
Ander
10-05-2004, 04:38 AM
I just don't trust Dick Cheney. He;s untrustable.
Ever seen Palpatine in Star Wars? Yeah. That's him.
I've heard that Cheney is physically unfit for a stressful job such as vice president.
Even without that...I'm rooting for Edwards. I had hoped that he would get the presidential nomination, as I believe that he's probably the best choice. But if he can't be president, at least we can get him in there somewhere.
F-ck Casey
10-05-2004, 05:22 AM
He has a Pacemaker.
So, I guess if he got to nervous and whatnot, his heart could explode, or something.
Radical Dreamer
10-05-2004, 09:40 PM
I can't wait for this debate, and hopefully Edwards will totally blow Cheney away. Edwards is a hard-working, self-made millionnaire who filed lawsuits against money-hungry corporations and helped so many working class men and women get back on their feet. He's the kind of guy that middle-class America should identify with...not a self-obsessed moneyman like Cheney who's constantly on the payroll of Halliburton and etc.
Link04
10-06-2004, 01:27 AM
It's going on now.....Edwards is making some great points, but he could be doing a lot better. I think he's still winning, imo. With a lot of CHeney's responses, it turns into a "no, you're wrong, I'm right) thing that we can't possibly trust, and there seems to be a certain gravity around Kerry's "inconsistancy".
Originally posted by Link04@Oct 5 2004, 10:57 PM
It's going on now.....Edwards is making some great points, but he could be doing a lot better. I think he's still winning, imo. With a lot of CHeney's responses, it turns into a "no, you're wrong, I'm right) thing that we can't possibly trust, and there seems to be a certain gravity around Kerry's "inconsistancy".
Exactly. Cheney is using smear-tactics on their reputations and saying they're wrong without backing up what he says is wrong. Edwards is making strong points, going on the offensive, and contradicting Cheney with evidence. I think he's doing great. Cheney is too boring and smart-assed.
Derek The Infamous
10-06-2004, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by Mark+Oct 5 2004, 08:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mark @ Oct 5 2004, 08:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Link04@Oct 5 2004, 10:57 PM
It's going on now.....Edwards is making some great points, but he could be doing a lot better.* I think he's still winning, imo.* With a lot of CHeney's responses, it turns into a "no, you're wrong, I'm right) thing that we can't possibly trust, and there seems to be a certain gravity around Kerry's "inconsistancy".
Exactly. Cheney is using smear-tactics on their reputations and saying they're wrong without backing up what he says is wrong. Edwards is making strong points, going on the offensive, and contradicting Cheney with evidence. I think he's doing great. Cheney is too boring and smart-assed. [/b][/quote]
That's not what everyone else is saying (no offense). The general reaction is that Cheney came very well prepared and that he beat Edwards extremely bad.
Ander
10-06-2004, 03:14 AM
Cheney won.
I don't care what anyone says. He did. John Edwards dropped the ball (and probably some votes).
F-ck Casey
10-06-2004, 03:19 AM
I missed it on account of Nip/Tuck >_<
Anyways, from what I hear at other boards, Cheney won by a "knock-out".
They're also saying that the Democrats are saying Edwards won because...well, they're Democrats. And vice-versa for the Republicans.
Oh well.
goso88
10-06-2004, 03:20 AM
Yeah, Cheney did win this one :( . But the presidential debates are what really matter, so I'm staying tuned for that.
Whimsicality
10-06-2004, 03:25 AM
Cheney owned Edwards in the first half of the debate, but I think Edwards had a slight edge in the second half.
Edwards seems like a nice, personable guy. The problem is, Cheney is a rock and presents hard facts. Doesn't make friends, but it wins debates. That said, Cheney didn't respond to a lot of Edwards' accusations during the second half (domestic issues), making his whole argument against Edwards (or more accurately, Kerry) seem weaker.
During the first half of the debate (forgein policies) Edwards repeated a lot of what we heard from Kerry last week--draw your own conclusions here. Cheney on the other hand said things we hadn't heard before, since as all of you know I'm sure, Bush didn't say much other then "War is hard work" in the first prez. debate.
Speaking of Bush's tag line, what about Kerry's? "I have a plan." Which was repeated exactly or similarly ("We have a plan. Our plan.") 12 times. Not something that would effect your vote, but amusing none the less.
Also, does anyone else agree that Edwards looked terrifed of Cheney, especially in the beginning of the debate?
They're also saying that the Democrats are saying Edwards won because...well, they're Democrats. And vice-versa for the Republicans.
As it always goes. :rolleyes: Sigh.
Originally posted by goso88@Oct 5 2004, 10:20 PM
Yeah, Cheney did win this one :( . But the presidential debates are what really matter, so I'm staying tuned for that.
Ditto. Who cares what happened in the vice president debate? There are still 2 more presidental debates where dubya WILL get owned.
F-ck Casey
10-06-2004, 03:39 AM
I wonder if Edwards would have won, would ya'lls attitude be the same towards this debate?
Seems to me since that Cheney owned Edwards, you're dismissing this victory as meaningless, when quite frankly it's not.
Originally posted by December@Oct 5 2004, 10:39 PM
I wonder if Edwards would have won, would ya'lls attitude be the same towards this debate?
Seems to me since that Cheney owned Edwards, you're dismissing this victory as meaningless, when quite frankly it's not.
No, my attitude wouldn't change, because this debate doesn't matter. By the time the 3rd presidental debate is overwith, people will have either forgotten about the vice president debate or won't give a crap about it.
People are voting on a president. Not a vice president. The president is the one calling all the shots, the chance of the VP actually having to take over is next to nothing. So until the VP has to take over, they preside over the senate which is still a pretty powerless position since the other 100 guys vote on everything.
Glenn
10-06-2004, 11:47 AM
I think John Edwards was too repetitive. I didn't watch a lot of it, but from the few times I glanced at the TV, Richard Cheny was a much better debator. Even if he wasn't accurate, Cheny had a clear calm voice. I was just informed by one of my friends standing over me that both parties used repetetive topics and I'd believe he was right, even though I didn't see most of it.
Derek The Infamous
10-06-2004, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by December@Oct 5 2004, 10:39 PM
I wonder if Edwards would have won, would ya'lls attitude be the same towards this debate?
Seems to me since that Cheney owned Edwards, you're dismissing this victory as meaningless, when quite frankly it's not.
No despite Kerry being too passive in last weeks debate, and Edwards getting practically owned in this debate some people still think Kerry and Edwards are champs in debating. Truth is they're not.
You need to hit hard and be like a rock instead of passive and friendly when you're debating. The american people want someone who can hit hard and sustain his views and thats why Cheney won this debate. I knew he was going to without even watching it, and sure enough I was correct. No offense to Edwards' fans but I knew that with his experience and stern attitude, Cheney was going to sweep this debate no problem.
Of course there are some democrats out there who will always vote democrat no matter what. Case in point: my brother. I wont lie and say I didn't formely support Kerry but as time went on my mind just changed drastically. I guess I pulled a Kerry eh?
Shade
10-06-2004, 03:59 PM
No despite Kerry being too passive in last weeks debate, and Edwards getting practically owned in this debate some people still think Kerry and Edwards are champs in debating. Truth is they're not.
Kerry and Edwards are very good Debaters, so is Cheney, but in a different way. Bush...well he just sucks and got slaughtered. Both Kerry and Edwards are not coming out fists flying, instead they are saying why the current 'plan' isn't working, what they intend to do about it, and how it will change. Bush sat there and mumbled nonsense, and Cheney sat there and shouted it. Both Bush and Cheney were on the defensive more or less the entire debate, but they made it seem like they were the ones doing the attacking by attacking their opponents character, and then saying their opponents were lying with little to no proof or support. Cheney was more aggressive, and has experience, this is true, but he was trying to use that to get people to ignore that he really didn't have a lot to work with. Particularly this was the case when Cheney said we had a coalition equivalent to that of the Gulf War. That's a complete distortion of the truth. We do have about the same amount of countries true, but the types of countries are totally different. Where in the Gulf War we had powers like Spain, France, and Germany, we not have tiny 3rd world nations like Morocco and what not comprising most of the coaltion. And the only reason they are there is because they want to get on the good side of the US.
You need to hit hard and be like a rock instead of passive and friendly when you're debating. The american people want someone who can hit hard
I disagree. I'd say that's what most Bush supporters would want, since most of the people I know who are die hard Bush fans look for that. They want a tuff president. I'm not looking for that. I'm looking for someone who makes strong points, says what needs to be said, and doesn't back down. Both Kerry and Edwards have done that.
I knew he was going to without even watching it, and sure enough I was correct.
That completely destroys your argument. You're making judgments on the debate without having even watched it. This tells me that you don't care what's said in debates, you don't care about how the candidates handle themselves, you'll support your side regardless.
I guess I pulled a Kerry eh?
Or you could say you pulled a Bush too. Just to be unbiased.
Originally posted by Shade@Oct 6 2004, 01:29 PM
No despite Kerry being too passive in last weeks debate, and Edwards getting practically owned in this debate some people still think Kerry and Edwards are champs in debating. Truth is they're not.
Kerry and Edwards are very good Debaters, so is Cheney, but in a different way. Bush...well he just sucks and got slaughtered. Both Kerry and Edwards are not coming out fists flying, instead they are saying why the current 'plan' isn't working, what they intend to do about it, and how it will change. Bush sat there and mumbled nonsense, and Cheney sat there and shouted it. Both Bush and Cheney were on the defensive more or less the entire debate, but they made it seem like they were the ones doing the attacking by attacking their opponents character, and then saying their opponents were lying with little to no proof or support. Cheney was more aggressive, and has experience, this is true, but he was trying to use that to get people to ignore that he really didn't have a lot to work with. Particularly this was the case when Cheney said we had a coalition equivalent to that of the Gulf War. That's a complete distortion of the truth. We do have about the same amount of countries true, but the types of countries are totally different. Where in the Gulf War we had powers like Spain, France, and Germany, we not have tiny 3rd world nations like Morocco and what not comprising most of the coaltion. And the only reason they are there is because they want to get on the good side of the US.
You need to hit hard and be like a rock instead of passive and friendly when you're debating. The american people want someone who can hit hard
I disagree. I'd say that's what most Bush supporters would want, since most of the people I know who are die hard Bush fans look for that. They want a tuff president. I'm not looking for that. I'm looking for someone who makes strong points, says what needs to be said, and doesn't back down. Both Kerry and Edwards have done that.
I knew he was going to without even watching it, and sure enough I was correct.
That completely destroys your argument. You're making judgments on the debate without having even watched it. This tells me that you don't care what's said in debates, you don't care about how the candidates handle themselves, you'll support your side regardless.
I guess I pulled a Kerry eh?
Or you could say you pulled a Bush too. Just to be unbiased.
Exactly.
I don't see the problem with a flip-flop here or there if new information comes to light. If you're deciding on one thing (such as Kerry on the $87B bill for military), then new information comes to light (such as the $87B bill being revised and having $20 million set aside for Halliburton in stead of the troops), there's no problem with makign a decision change. There's a difference between flip-flopping for the polls/when under pressure (Bush) and flip-flopping when new information comes to light (Kerry).
I think Edwards made alot of good points, he pointed out what was wrong with the current administration and why a change is needed. Cheney had the "no, you're wrong" attitude and just didn't back it up justly. For instance, when Cheney said that Edwards was wrong about 90% of coalition casualties being American, Edwards was in fact right. 88.5% of casualties in the coalition (not including iraqi fighters, they're not a part of the 30-country coalition) are Americans.
Cheney was somewhat right about Edwards being wrong about the $200B in Iraq. Edwards was talking about the $200B pledged to Iraq through 2005. $120B has been spent on Iraq to this date. Cheney was right there. Edwards just didn't clarify enough.
Edwards did make valid points on the non-existant link between Saddam and 9/11, Halliburton's no-bid contract and Enron's funding of the Bush campaign, and the job loss under Bush (especially outsourcing).
Originally posted by Todd+Oct 5 2004, 08:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Todd @ Oct 5 2004, 08:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--December@Oct 5 2004, 10:39 PM
I wonder if Edwards would have won, would ya'lls attitude be the same towards this debate?
Seems to me since that Cheney owned Edwards, you're dismissing this victory as meaningless, when quite frankly it's not.
No, my attitude wouldn't change, because this debate doesn't matter. By the time the 3rd presidental debate is overwith, people will have either forgotten about the vice president debate or won't give a crap about it.
People are voting on a president. Not a vice president. The president is the one calling all the shots, the chance of the VP actually having to take over is next to nothing. So until the VP has to take over, they preside over the senate which is still a pretty powerless position since the other 100 guys vote on everything. [/b][/quote]
Totally agreed, everyone will have totally forgotten aobut this debate once the other two presidential ones take place.
But it was kinda obvious that this should have been an easy win for Cheney because he is the one practically running the government right now. Cheney is the brains of the Bush administration.
Cheney also didn't answer two questions completely. He didn't answer the question about Israel and talked about education instead of poverty when the question of poverty was asked. Why evade those questions? Does he have something to hide?
Cheney's "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude is not what I want in a President or Vice President. I want a President who will admit his mistakes, instead of defending them like someone who was just caught cheating in school.
Cheney also mumbled too much, and muffled his microphone a lot. That's not something one should do in a debate. You need to be clear and concise and have life. Edwards had life, Cheney did not. Cheney might as well had been sleeping. Did anyone else notice that both Bush and Cheney slouched through almost the entire debate? Edwards sat up in the seat (aside from the leading on the table with his elbow, not his forearm) and Kerry stood tall the whole time.
I feel that Cheney was strong in the first half, but he completely fell apart in the second half of the debate. I feel that both were equally matched, and that Edwards won by a slight margin. (Again, my opinion.)
LOL. Cheney is some brainy; http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2004/1004/...ct-10-06-04.asp (http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2004/1004/web-fact-10-06-04.asp)
More politicians have been giving pointers to Web sites during speeches and appearances, particularly during this presidential election cycle. But last night, citizens were pointed to a site that directly contradicted the message Vice President Richard Cheney wanted to make.
During the Tuesday night vice presidential debate, Cheney cited a Web site developed by the Political Fact Check project at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania as a place for citizens to find details about the charges Democrats have made against Halliburton. That includes a charge that the company did not have to compete for multimillion dollar contracts in Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive officer before he ran for vice president.
However, while the project's Web site is at factcheck.org, the address that Cheney provided was factcheck.com.
Factcheck.com redirects visitors to another site, georgesoros.com, a personal site of billionaire George Soros titled "Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush: A Personal Message from George Soros."
And here; http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000660420 (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000660420)
In last night's big debate, Vice President Richard Cheney seemingly scored points when he referred to a statement in what he said was Sen. John Edwards' "hometown newspaper." The paper, he said, had called Edwards "Senator Gone," a barb aimed at the senator's absence during a number of Senate floor votes.
Cheney did not cite the name of the paper, and most people probably assumed that it was the major daily in Raleigh, The News & Observer, where Edwards has lived for several decades.
The News & Observer, however, quickly did an archival search and could find no record of such a putdown in its pages. It turns out that the source happens to be a small paper published three times a week in North Carolina's Moore County, called The Pilot.
"I thought it was great," Steve Bouser, editor of the Pilot, told E&P, with a laugh. "How many little three-times-a-week papers get mentioned in a national debate?"
Edwards, he said, grew up in a small town in North Carolina called Robbins, which is located in the northern part of Moore County. He moved to Raleigh as an adult. Which area counts as his "hometown" may be subject to...debate.
Bouser admitted that when he heard Cheney's comment, he did not realize at first that the vice president was referring to the Pilot. "I thought maybe the Republicans, knowing that Edwards had moved to Washington from Raleigh, maybe thought that was his hometown," he said. Bouser assumed (along with many others, presumably) that Cheney had seen the editorial in The News & Observer.
Bouser said the Pilot had not received many phone calls today about the editorial, which ran way back in June 2003 and is re-posted on its Web site today. "I was a little bit surprised that we haven't had a lot of calls, but he [Cheney] didn't list the paper by name," Bouser said.
The June 25, 2003, editorial also included the following: "Members of the senator's staff point out that Edwards' attendance record this year has been better than the other three Demcoratic senators who are campaigning for president--Joe Lieberman, Richad Gephardt and Bob Graham. And the aides also say none of the votes Edswards missed was close, so his presence on the floor would not have changed the outcome."
Originally posted by Mark@Oct 6 2004, 02:53 PM
http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2004/1004/...ct-10-06-04.asp (http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2004/1004/web-fact-10-06-04.asp)
LOL!!! OWNED!
Shade
10-06-2004, 07:59 PM
I HIGHLY recommend everyone check out FactCheck.ORG (notice the .org part since Cheney gave the wrong address). They have a great article on the debate.
Article (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272)
NOTE: The site is VERY slow, even on my college internet connection.
They lay out facts and misrepresentations from both sides, though there seem to be more distortions on Cheney's side than Edwards, big surprise there.
Cheney got our domain name wrong -- calling us "FactCheck.com" -- and wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton.
Edwards was also slightly off when he said Halliburton paid millions in fines "while he (Cheney) was CEO." What he meant was that it paid fines for matters that took place while Cheney was in charge. And in fact, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced Aug. 3 that Halliburton will pay $7.5 million to settle a matter that dates back to 1998, when Cheney was CEO.
Cheney claimed Edwards has such a poor attendance record in the Senate that he was just meeting Edwards for the first time during the debate, even though Cheney visits the Senate every Tuesday. But the Kerry-Edwards campaign quickly documented at least two instances in which Cheney had met Edwards previously.
The list goes on. My personally favorite section was on the War casualties. Cheney tries to count Iraqi deaths as part of the coaltion. Unless I missed something, aren't we the ones CAUSING most of the Iraqi casualties???
Today After Tomorrow
10-07-2004, 02:20 AM
Just about all of you say that Cheney won...
...Since when do you win a debate by lieing about everything possible?
Too much "body language" is used in the decision on who won a debate. President Cheney, oh sorry, Vice President Cheney constantly told lies about everything he could. And it wasn't small lies - They were lies that are very easily prooven to be lies.
"I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." In a radio interview in January 2004, Cheney said: "I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." First there was a connection, now there isn't? HE'S FLIP FLOPPING!!
"We have added 1.7 million jobs to the economy." On November 2nd, George Bush will be the first president in 70 years to lose jobs. There will be about a million fewer jobs than there were when Bush took office, and about 7 million fewer than Bush's own post-9/11 estimate.
And he doesn't just lie about the important issues. He even lies about a stupid thing like not meeting John Edwards before. "The first time I ever met you[Senator John Edwards] was when you walked on stage tonight." They met when Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole to be sworn in by Cheney as Senator and at the National Prayer Breakfast(where Richard Cheney even mentions John Edwards name, and they sit beside each other). So first he knows John Edwards and now he doesn't. HE'S FLIP FLOPPING AGAIN!!
Everyday I see a Bush/Cheney 04' sign in a yard, or a bumper sticker on a car I just wonder indisbelief how a person could be that stupid. If I had the time i'd love to stop at each and every house I see with a Bush/Cheney sign and ask them why they're voting for George Bush - And then absolutly destroy anything they say. Everything coming from these people is a lie. I just don't even know what to say about it. It just boggles my mind on how uninformed people can be.
F-ck Casey
10-07-2004, 02:38 AM
Whoa, I think over 2/3's of LPA's population is a Kerry Supporter.
I think the only Bush supporters here are Derek & I.
EDIT: Haha, and I guess you're going to ask me why I support Bush too, huh? Don't bother, you won't change my mind.
Today After Tomorrow
10-07-2004, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by Casey@Oct 7 2004, 02:38 AM
Whoa, I think over 2/3's of LPA's population is a Kerry Supporter.
I think the only Bush supporters here are Derek & I.
That's a shame. I feel sorry for you and Derek.
F-ck Casey
10-07-2004, 02:44 AM
I feel sorry for you and the Flip Flop Supporters.
Today After Tomorrow
10-07-2004, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by Casey@Oct 7 2004, 02:44 AM
I feel sorry for you and the Flip Flop Supporters.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. And George Bush doesn't flip flop? You're kidding yourself. At least John Kerry has the balls to admit when he was wrong. If he thought something and it was prooven to be wrong he has the balls to say that he was wrong and change his mind. There's absolutly nothing wrong with that. Bush still claims he'd due everything the exact same way if he had to do it all over again. That would really piss you off if you paid attention to what was really happening over there in Iraq. But hey, who cares about those Iraqi's right?!
I truely, and I mean truely, feel sorry for you. And it may be mean, but I'll be sure to come running to the LPA Forums as soon as John Kerry is announced as the next President of the United States and let you know. ;)
goso88
10-07-2004, 03:39 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHA. And George Bush doesn't flip flop? You're kidding yourself. At least John Kerry has the balls to admit when he was wrong. If he thought something and it was prooven to be wrong he has the balls to say that he was wrong and change his mind. There's absolutly nothing wrong with that. Bush still claims he'd due everything the exact same way if he had to do it all over again.
Yes, Bush is a tad bit stubborn...and stubborn does not equal tough or right or even consistent as so many bush supporters seem to think ^_^
Shade
10-07-2004, 04:39 AM
Yes, Bush is a tad bit stubborn...
Understatement of the millenia. :P
finaldude14
10-07-2004, 05:14 AM
i support bush also
F-ck Casey
10-07-2004, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by finaldude14@Oct 7 2004, 12:14 AM
i support bush also
Party at my place! :lol:
Shadow
10-07-2004, 05:33 AM
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryho...le/pentagon.php (http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php)
For those that haven't seen that.
If you have then avoid the post.
If you haven't seen it. See it! Then think.. that the one administration during power was that and only of Bush.
Then think.. even more.. you still want to vote for a person that covers up something like this? Then think even more.. was 9/11 staged up? That the whole purpose of all this crap about IRAQ and Hussein .. was it really "true"? Did he do the right thing? I dunno.. What seems like a "missile" hitting the pentagon and then afterwards make the whole nation believe it was a freaking plane that hit that!
Only left me with what I want to call Bush: Liar.
That is all I will comment and I really hope Kerry wins.
F-ck Casey
10-07-2004, 05:35 AM
Are you trying to say Bush was a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks? :huh:
Shadow
10-07-2004, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by Casey@Oct 7 2004, 05:35 AM
Are you trying to say Bush was a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks? :huh:
I am only giving those questions and giving that flash for others to view. For me it has left me with one thing to think of the guy and that's nothing but a liar. A missile or some "projectile" didn't hit the Pentagon for no reason. I am pretty sure Mr Bush knows.
I am calling his team and whoever was in charge of that liars because no damn plane hit the damn thing >=/ why the hell would you lie about something so huge.. there is a reason behind it. You don't have to lie for no reason unless is something you don't want people too look hard at you for.
F-ck Casey
10-07-2004, 05:53 AM
Yes Yes, I get you're reasoning behind saying all that, but to me it sounds like you're saying Bush & bin Laden planned 9/11 out over Thanksgiving Turkey or something.
If you're not, I apologize.
Shadow
10-07-2004, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Casey@Oct 7 2004, 05:53 AM
Yes Yes, I get you're reasoning behind saying all that, but to me it sounds like you're saying Bush & bin Laden planned 9/11 out over Thanksgiving Turkey or something.
If you're not, I apologize.
Even with that flash for me to be like how I am.. I can't come up with a statement like that. I have no facts or evidence. This flash only shows me that something was "planned" that is all I know. I am not saying he did that though xD.
I dunno why was it planned.
Or the purpose of the plan.
And finally why they lied >=/
It could be that he could of been teaming up with Bin laden or some crap like how you said[or understood that from what I said which is not what I meant xD] , but I have no evidence to back that up so I am not going to just sum it all up into that. All I know is that there was a plan.. a plan but for what? >=/
personally i thought Cheney didn't do too bad for himself on Tuesday. :thumbsup:
Originally posted by Casey@Oct 7 2004, 12:08 AM
Whoa, I think over 2/3's of LPA's population is a Kerry Supporter.
I think the only Bush supporters here are Derek & I.
EDIT: Haha, and I guess you're going to ask me why I support Bush too, huh? Don't bother, you won't change my mind.
I don't really care if you support Bush or not, because you can't vote. There's no sense in trying to change your mind. As for me, I'm an outside party sharing opinions. My vote does not need to be counted because I won't be a future voter in the US.
As for those of you who can vote and are voting for Bush, you should read what I, Will, Todd, Shade and Today After Tomorrow have said. None of what we have said is a lie, it's all the truth. You'll regret another four years under Bush more than you can understand in the next few years. And the world will too.
With Bush;
- Terrorists will want to attack your country even more.
- The environment will continue to deteriorate.
- More hazardous wastes will be spilled into your nearby lakes.
- Nuclear power plants will continue to be unsafely guarded.
- Cargo on airplanes will continue to be unchecked.
- More jobs will be lost.
- Your health care system will continue to be in shambles.
- Your country will still go into other countries with no evidence of WMDs against the wishes of some f your closest allies in the UN.
- North Korea will continue to get more nuclear missiles.
- Corporate America will still continue to get favoritism and tax breaks in absolute unfairness to the other 90% of America.
- There will be less jobs. Especially for you younger voters.
And that's just after three minutes of thinking.
Link04
10-07-2004, 07:48 PM
I have but one link, and it contains enough truth to make your head spin. Lots of good reading: http://www.globalissues.org/
Originally posted by Boo@Oct 7 2004, 10:21 AM
personally i thought Cheney didn't do too bad for himself on Tuesday. :thumbsup:
any time he goes a whole day without having a heart attack can be considered not too bad for the old sh*t
Today After Tomorrow
10-08-2004, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Casey@Oct 7 2004, 05:35 AM
Are you trying to say Bush was a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks? :huh:
He was. Maybe not George Bush himself BUT people inside the Bush Administration(Cheney, Rumsfeld) knew about it and helped plan it to happen. Using airplanes and crashing them into big city's has been tried before by our very own government. Back when Kennedy was president the CIA proposed that they would "hijack" and fly a plane into a big US city in order to justify an attack on Cuba. It's a perfect plan for people who have no regard for human life and just want to control another country. Kennedy would have none of that though and said no. And hey, guess what?! He was shortly after assasinated. They couldn't have that information in the hands of someone who didn't support it. Fast forward a whole lot of years and we have people like Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz who openly stated that they wanted to remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power and have a more assertive US policy in the Middle East. In a report just before the 2000 election the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." Well hey, what do you know? About one year later that very event they needed happened: the September 11 attacks! And hey, Richard Cheney: Vice President; Donald Rumsfeld: Secretary of Defense; Paul Wolfowitz: Rumsfeld's Deputy at the Pentagon. They all had the power to make their very plan(removing Saddam's regime) work as quickly as possible. Let's be honest: Bush is their puppet and will do whatever they say. The next morning(9/12) Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism." This is even before the Bush Administration "knew who did it." So this plan of removing Saddam began in 1997 - when Bill Clinton was still president(ahhhh those were the days!) and none of these people had any power. 3 years later they're back in power. 1 year after that the exact thing they needed and wanted to happen happened. Wow all that sure is odd!
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/D...nac_030310.html (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html)
http://www.newamericancentury.org
ChooseYourPoison
10-08-2004, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by Today After Tomorrow+Oct 8 2004, 12:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Today After Tomorrow @ Oct 8 2004, 12:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Casey@Oct 7 2004, 05:35 AM
Are you trying to say Bush was a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks? :huh:
He was. Maybe not George Bush himself BUT people inside the Bush Administration(Cheney, Rumsfeld) knew about it and helped plan it to happen. Using airplanes and crashing them into big city's has been tried before by our very own government. Back when Kennedy was president the CIA proposed that they would "hijack" and fly a plane into a big US city in order to justify an attack on Cuba. It's a perfect plan for people who have no regard for human life and just want to control another country. Kennedy would have none of that though and said no. And hey, guess what?! He was shortly after assasinated. They couldn't have that information in the hands of someone who didn't support it. Fast forward a whole lot of years and we have people like Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz who openly stated that they wanted to remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power and have a more assertive US policy in the Middle East. In a report just before the 2000 election the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." Well hey, what do you know? About one year later that very event they needed happened: the September 11 attacks! And hey, Richard Cheney: Vice President; Donald Rumsfeld: Secretary of Defense; Paul Wolfowitz: Rumsfeld's Deputy at the Pentagon. They all had the power to make their very plan(removing Saddam's regime) work as quickly as possible. Let's be honest: Bush is their puppet and will do whatever they say. The next morning(9/12) Rumsfeld insisted at a Cabinet meeting that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round of terrorism." This is even before the Bush Administration "knew who did it." So this plan of removing Saddam began in 1997 - when Bill Clinton was still president(ahhhh those were the days!) and none of these people had any power. 3 years later they're back in power. 1 year after that the exact thing they needed and wanted to happen happened. Wow all that sure is odd!
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/D...nac_030310.html (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html)
http://www.newamericancentury.org [/b][/quote]
I love people who know what they're talking about.
The only real problem I have with Cheney is that he opposes gay marraiges when his own daughter is a lesbian. :wth:
Originally posted by HybridMinoda@Oct 7 2004, 11:18 PM
The only real problem I have with Cheney is that he opposes gay marraiges when his own daughter is a lesbian. :wth:
He only opposes it because the President opposes it. Otherwise, Cheney would be for gay marriages. They had a big news conference about it quite some time ago.
Jawsome
10-08-2004, 06:43 AM
If bush wins the election, I'm moving to Canada.
Originally posted by Jawsome@Oct 8 2004, 06:43 AM
If bush wins the election, I'm moving to Canada.
then leave
Originally posted by Boo+Oct 8 2004, 10:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Boo @ Oct 8 2004, 10:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jawsome@Oct 8 2004, 06:43 AM
If bush wins the election, I'm moving to Canada.
then leave [/b][/quote]
Start to show some respect to other members or you will get your 3rd warning very soon.
3rd?
is it cuz im republican?
Andrea
10-08-2004, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Boo@Oct 8 2004, 11:42 AM
3rd?
is it cuz im republican?
No. :rolleyes:
It's just that you're being rude. Choose your words wisely.
Shade
10-08-2004, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Boo@Oct 8 2004, 03:42 PM
3rd?
is it cuz im republican?
#### like that pisses me off so much. You sit there and tell everyone who doesn't think like you to go away and then say others are judging you on your opinions. Grow up. So far most of your posts or have managed to attack others and piss them off. Way to go, I'm sure we'll all be partying once you finally cross the line and get banned.
Derek The Infamous
10-08-2004, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Boo@Oct 8 2004, 10:42 AM
3rd?
is it cuz im republican?
And then you wonder why people think Bush supporters are arrogant. I myself am one of those (cause personally I just cant stand Kerry and I think I'm entitled to that right) and I dont appreciate you acting the way you are.
Grow up or face a third warning. While I do agree that some democrats are wacked the f*ck out (mostly heavy liberals) I dont think you being republican has anything to do with you getting warned. I think it has to do with your foul attitude and complete urge to do everything a moderator tells you not to do.
Originally posted by Derek@Oct 8 2004, 05:40 PM
While I do agree that some democrats are wacked the f*ck out (mostly heavy liberals).
Take that back. You should be respecting others opinions, politically opposite or not. :rolleyes:
Judging by that statement, I could say republicans are difference-intolerant and moronic, but I won't.
Today After Tomorrow
10-09-2004, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by Derek@Oct 8 2004, 08:10 PM
I just cant stand Kerry
Why?
Derek The Infamous
10-09-2004, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by Today After Tomorrow+Oct 8 2004, 07:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Today After Tomorrow @ Oct 8 2004, 07:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Derek@Oct 8 2004, 08:10 PM
I just cant stand Kerry
Why? [/b][/quote]
Call my reasons stupid if you want but I just cannot stand his character. For one, people criticized Bush's grimaces during the debate and yet if you look at Kerry he was smiling like a jackass the entire time. I dont know what is worse, making a disgusted face because you believe that what your opponent is saying to be lies, or smiling in an almost mocking manner and not respecting what your opponent has to say by doing so. I believe his immature smiling was childish, and that right there made me lose some respect for Kerry.
Also the guy cant keep his mind straight on anything. People claim Bush is a flip-flopper as well but I just cannot trust Kerry with the way he acts. My reasons might sound personal but the way Kerry acts just makes me lose respect for him as a president.
If he acts more mature tonight and doesnt do the smiling, maybe I'll respect him more. After all, I did say he has 2 more chances to impress me.
Originally posted by Derek+Oct 8 2004, 10:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Derek @ Oct 8 2004, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Today After Tomorrow@Oct 8 2004, 07:16 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Derek@Oct 8 2004, 08:10 PM
I just cant stand Kerry
Why?
Call my reasons stupid if you want but I just cannot stand his character. For one, people criticized Bush's grimaces during the debate and yet if you look at Kerry he was smiling like a jackass the entire time. I dont know what is worse, making a disgusted face because you believe that what your opponent is saying to be lies, or smiling in an almost mocking manner and not respecting what your opponent has to say by doing so. I believe his immature smiling was childish, and that right there made me lose some respect for Kerry.
Also the guy cant keep his mind straight on anything. People claim Bush is a flip-flopper as well but I just cannot trust Kerry with the way he acts. My reasons might sound personal but the way Kerry acts just makes me lose respect for him as a president.
If he acts more mature tonight and doesnt do the smiling, maybe I'll respect him more. After all, I did say he has 2 more chances to impress me. [/b][/quote]
You don't like a candidate because of the way he smirks? And Kerry didn't smirk. According to you, I thought he was passive! Look at Bush, he's a condescending jackass throughout this debate and the last one. Too many wisecracks. I'd rather a serious commander in chief than a goofball. That's the worst reason to vote for something so important.
Originally posted by Derek@Oct 8 2004, 08:42 PM
I believe his immature smiling was childish, and that right there made me lose some respect for Kerry.
Right. And I suppose Bush's wisecracks and grimmaces at Kerry were A-OK with you? That's messed up.
Derek The Infamous
10-09-2004, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by Will+Oct 8 2004, 09:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Will @ Oct 8 2004, 09:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Derek@Oct 8 2004, 08:42 PM
I believe his immature smiling was childish, and that right there made me lose some respect for Kerry.
Right. And I suppose Bush's wisecracks and grimmaces at Kerry were A-OK with you? That's messed up. [/b][/quote]
I never said Bush's grimaces were okay, so please do not put words in my mouth. You wouldn't respect it either if it was done to you.
I was saying that you CANNOT attack Bush's facial expressions when Kerry himself seemed to be immature himself by smiling almost sarcastically during some of Bush's big points. Both candidates were wrong in the way they acted, and as you saw from this debate..Bush spent more time sitting and taking notes and looking directly at his candidate then making the 'grimaces' the Kerry campaign is trying to use against him. Same with Kerry and his smiling, there was a lot less of it this time around.
It's pretty pathetic when a campaign has to stoop as low to use facial expressions against an opposing candidate. If you said something to me that I knew in my heart not to be true I wouldn't stare at you like you're the best person in the world. I'd be pretty uncomfortable.
Originally posted by Derek@Oct 8 2004, 10:54 PM
It's pretty pathetic when a campaign has to stoop as low to use facial expressions against an opposing candidate.
If it's so pathetic, why did you even bring it up to start with? I mean, come on. Also, you're very hypocritical. In the other thread, you said, "Who the hell cares what Bush did?" If that's your damn rhetoric, then who cares what Kerry did?
Derek The Infamous
10-09-2004, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by Will+Oct 8 2004, 09:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Will @ Oct 8 2004, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Derek@Oct 8 2004, 10:54 PM
It's pretty pathetic when a campaign has to stoop as low to use facial expressions against an opposing candidate.
If it's so pathetic, why did you even bring it up to start with? I mean, come on. Also, you're very hypocritical. In the other thread, you said, "Who the hell cares what Bush did?" If that's your damn rhetoric, then who cares what Kerry did? [/b][/quote]
I brought up the point of Kerry's smiling because you need to fight fire with fire sometimes to get the point across. While I do not agree with criticizing Bush for his grimacing, I made a point that you should look at what both opponents were doing during that debate before attacking just one person.
And you can call me very hypocritical, but just like I went from supporting Kerry to Bush..I STRICTLY remember you being for Bush a few months ago. You weren't always so democratic and I know this because several people approached me going "What's with Will? He's a democrat now?". If you are going to accuse me of being hypocritical, remember that you once supported the way Bush was working as president before you went against him. Just like I supported Kerry before he started to come off as an untrustworthy candidate, you supported Bush before you started to believe the "Bush knocked down the towers" theory and much more.
I might be a hypocrit by saying I dont care what Bush did when I'm attacking Kerry, but I'm not going to support a president who has been absent/voted no for some very important bills. He criticizes the president for not providing proper armor, and yet he voted against providing our troops with that exact same armor.
Something is clearly not right here.
Shade
10-09-2004, 04:50 AM
He criticizes the president for not providing proper armor, and yet he voted against providing our troops with that exact same armor.
Bush changed the deal on that one. Kerry was for providing troups with armor. Bush then tried to pull a fast one using pork barrel politics. He tried to (I believe this is right) put in a payment to haliburton of some kind in the bill, and tried to put off payment for the plan to future generations. Kerry did not support that part, and since it was all or nothing, Kerry chose to vote against the bill. Can you really blame him?
Kerry makes decisions based on information as it becomes available. He doesn't rush blindly forward relying on what he was told years ago, and he doesn't expect the American people to do that either. Bush does. I want a president who isn't afraid to realize mistakes, and who will make damn sure he's making the best decision with all the current information. Bush simply uses whatever 'intelligence' suits him best.
Today After Tomorrow
10-09-2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Derek+Oct 9 2004, 03:14 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Derek @ Oct 9 2004, 03:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Will@Oct 8 2004, 09:58 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--Derek@Oct 8 2004, 10:54 PM
It's pretty pathetic when a campaign has to stoop as low to use facial expressions against an opposing candidate.
If it's so pathetic, why did you even bring it up to start with? I mean, come on. Also, you're very hypocritical. In the other thread, you said, "Who the hell cares what Bush did?" If that's your damn rhetoric, then who cares what Kerry did?
I brought up the point of Kerry's smiling because you need to fight fire with fire sometimes to get the point across. While I do not agree with criticizing Bush for his grimacing, I made a point that you should look at what both opponents were doing during that debate before attacking just one person.
And you can call me very hypocritical, but just like I went from supporting Kerry to Bush..I STRICTLY remember you being for Bush a few months ago. You weren't always so democratic and I know this because several people approached me going "What's with Will? He's a democrat now?". If you are going to accuse me of being hypocritical, remember that you once supported the way Bush was working as president before you went against him. Just like I supported Kerry before he started to come off as an untrustworthy candidate, you supported Bush before you started to believe the "Bush knocked down the towers" theory and much more.
I might be a hypocrit by saying I dont care what Bush did when I'm attacking Kerry, but I'm not going to support a president who has been absent/voted no for some very important bills. He criticizes the president for not providing proper armor, and yet he voted against providing our troops with that exact same armor.
Something is clearly not right here. [/b][/quote]
I had put this in another thread explaining the whole $87 billion thing"
The '$87 billion bill' Kerry voted for was a different bill than the '$87 billion bill' he voted against. Originally Kerry voted for the $87 billion to supply soldiers with the proper armor, ammunition, etc. But afterwards a change was made to that bill. What was going to happen was $67 billion of that would go to the soldiers(Kerry liked that) but the other $20 billion would basically be a blank check to the Bush Administration for the rebuilding of Iraq(Kerry didn't like that). It was basically a scam to benifit big companys, a.k.a. Halliburton. And we all know how Halliburton has overcharged the Government before and where'd the extra money go? Most likely straight into Cheney's pockets. Since being discovered Hallibuton has agreed to refund the Government but that has yet to happen. Another reason Kerry later disagreed with the bill is on how the money would be collected. Kerry supported the Democratic-Way of getting it - By taking it from the rich people's tax cuts. Bush has given them enough, maybe it's time they gave back to the US. But nooo Bush doesn't want to upset his rich buddys so he thought getting the money through loans would be a better idea. Kerry didn't like this because by getting it through loans that would mean young people/kids would be paying it back for years and years to come. Kerry thought that was wrong and taking money from the rich people's tax cuts was a much better idea. And personally, I'd have to agree. So when it came time for another vote for the bill Kerry voted against it. He knew for a fact that no matter which way he voted he knew the bill would pass and the soldiers would get their money. He voted against the bill as a form of protest on how the Bush Administration was handling it. He wouldn't have protested with his vote if there was a chance the soldiers wouldn't get their money. He only did it because he KNEW the bill would be passed no matter which way he voted.
Yes, that was a flip flop but I think the reason for flip flopping was a good one. Just because you're a politician doesn't mean you can't change your mind once in awhile, or learn new things about something and change your standing on a particular event(aka Iraq War). And if there's anyone out there who still wants to complain about Kerry's "flip flops"(no one really shows any flip flops though) then go look here (http://actforvictory.org/act.php/truth/truth-about/bushs_flip_flops/), here (http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/top10_flipflops/), and here (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-09-22).
I'd also like to note that Bush several times threatened to veto the bill if things did not go the way he wanted. $1.2 million of that was going to go to reservists and veterans - Not under Bush's watch. Bush's people said that unless that was removed from the bill they would tell Bush to veto the bill. Bush also threatened to veto the bill if soldiers did not sign up for longer terms. Now seriously, what kind of bullsh*t is that? Which is worse: Threatening to "veto the soldiers safety" so more would sign up for longer terms or use your vote(that would mean nothing) in a way to protest the way the Bush Administration was handling the bill?
About the whole faces thing: In the first debate Bush's were ridiculous looking. I think people mainly made a big deal out of it because it made him look really stupid. Second debate it was obvious Republicans had a talk with him and he did much better. As for Kerry's face I get what you're saying about the "Jackass-Smirk" but I think that's just how it came out. He's trying to have a smile on his face while listening but when you're hearing all these lies and attacks from Bush it's probably hard not to have that smile look a little strange. And I don't think you can call the Kerry campaign pathetic for making fun of those faces. The Bush campaign would have done the same thing. And with all the attacks that the Republicans have fired at Kerry, Kerry should have the right to walk up to Bush and kick him in the nuts several times.
Back to that bill. Yes, Kerry does critisize Bush. George Bush sent about 40,000 troops to Iraq/Afghanistan without the proper armor needed. That's wrong. John Kerry wouldn't have done that. He would have made sure they had the proper armor to begin with. And he voted against it for a good reason, which I explained up there ^. I don't get why Kerry won't simply take one of the 2 minutes or 90 seconds and explain this. A lot more Americans might understand why he voted against it then. He should at least say why he did it at a speech or something.
Does anyone else find it funny that no one ever laughed at Bush's jokes? Tough crowd...
Flip Flopping. Why do I hear so much **** about Kerry flip flopping? I imagine that most of you watched last night's debate and noted Bush's respone to the question, "Name three mistakes you have made." He said that he might have made a few mistakes in his appointments, but nothing else.
I would rather have an open minded, so-called "flip flopping" president than a president so set in his ways that he won't admit to being wrong, much less change.
I never said Bush's grimaces were okay, so please do not put words in my mouth. You wouldn't respect it either if it was done to you.
I was saying that you CANNOT attack Bush's facial expressions when Kerry himself seemed to be immature himself by smiling almost sarcastically during some of Bush's big points. Both candidates were wrong in the way they acted, and as you saw from this debate..Bush spent more time sitting and taking notes and looking directly at his candidate then making the 'grimaces' the Kerry campaign is trying to use against him. Same with Kerry and his smiling, there was a lot less of it this time around.
It's pretty pathetic when a campaign has to stoop as low to use facial expressions against an opposing candidate. If you said something to me that I knew in my heart not to be true I wouldn't stare at you like you're the best person in the world. I'd be pretty uncomfortable.
Bush's grimaces bothered me more than Kerry's smiling. (I expect a few attacks saying that that's so only because I'm liberal. It's not. I have a lot of experience in debate/public speaking, and I know what bothers me.) Bush used really bad debate form. Did you notice that, in the first debate, whenever Bush was speaking, Kerry was taking notes or at least LOOKING attentive, rather than grimacing and making monkey faces? Yeah. What would put you off more? Monkey faces, or someone looking pleasant and taking notes?
Omar A
10-10-2004, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by katethegreat@Oct 9 2004, 07:32 PM
Kerry was taking notes or at least LOOKING attentive, rather than grimacing and making monkey faces? Yeah. What would put you off more? Monkey faces, or someone looking pleasant and taking notes?
You can't blame Bush for looking like a monkey :lol:
Originally posted by Omar A+Oct 9 2004, 09:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Omar A @ Oct 9 2004, 09:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--katethegreat@Oct 9 2004, 07:32 PM
Kerry was taking notes or at least LOOKING attentive, rather than grimacing and making monkey faces? Yeah. What would put you off more? Monkey faces, or someone looking pleasant and taking notes?
You can't blame Bush for looking like a monkey :lol: [/b][/quote]
Yes you can.
"Mr. Bush?"
"Yes?"
"I blame you for your son looking like a monkey."
Originally posted by katethegreat@Oct 9 2004, 07:32 PM
He said that he might have made a few mistakes in his appointments, but nothing else.
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Rice. Except they weren't mistakes. They were catastrophies
Derek The Infamous
10-14-2004, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Will+Oct 9 2004, 08:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Will @ Oct 9 2004, 08:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -Omar A@Oct 9 2004, 09:16 PM
<!--QuoteBegin--katethegreat@Oct 9 2004, 07:32 PM
Kerry was taking notes or at least LOOKING attentive, rather than grimacing and making monkey faces?* Yeah.* What would put you off more?* Monkey faces, or someone looking pleasant and taking notes?
You can't blame Bush for looking like a monkey :lol:
Yes you can.
"Mr. Bush?"
"Yes?"
"I blame you for your son looking like a monkey." [/b][/quote]
I'd rather look like a monkey than whatever Kerry looks like. Right now I'm inbetween a shar-pei or a basset hound. Maybe even a melting candle.
Rest assured he has to be the ugliest presidental candidate we've ever had. I feel like I have to move to a smaller TV because his noggin is so large.
Link04
10-14-2004, 01:49 AM
:rolleyes: Oh come one people, are we going to judge a book by it's cover?
Originally posted by Link04@Oct 13 2004, 11:19 PM
:rolleyes: Oh come one people, are we going to judge a book by it's cover?
here here!
Today After Tomorrow
10-14-2004, 06:21 AM
Personally I think everyone should just vote based on which animal they like best. BUSH: Monkey. KERRY: Horse. Don't listen to the facts people - Just vote on which animal you like best! I like horsies personally. :D
He said that he might have made a few mistakes in his appointments, but nothing else.
--------------------------------
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Rice. Except they weren't mistakes. They were catastrophies
Maybe some appointments and maybe a little more...:
- Telling the nation Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a "grave and gathering" threat to our security. A report issued last week confirms that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and indicates that Saddam posed little danger to the U.S.
- Ignoring the State Department's plan for winning the peace in Iraq. In the months before the war, the State Department created an elaborate guide to establishing order in Iraq, but the Pentagon utterly ignored it. Bush administration leaders predicted our troops would be greeted with flowers, but a year and a half later, Iraq is in chaos and an insurgency is growing.
- Opposing the 9-11 Commission. In May of 2002, Bush told foreign leaders that he opposed an independent probe on the 9/11 attacks. After pressure from 9/11 family members, he changed his mind. The commission identified a number of serious errors and deficiencies in the U.S. intelligence gathering system.
- Signing a report endorsing the outsourcing of jobs to other countries. In February of 2004, the president's annual report to Congress on the U.S. economy reflected the philosophy that "outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade."
- Failing to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. A number of state legislatures have now come out against the bill, saying that there is no way to meet the goals set by No Child Left Behind with the paltry funding they've been offered.
Oh yeah, don't forget those 100 other mistakes (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=64326). ;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.11 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.