• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Cheney/Edwards Debate Tonight...

Status
Not open for further replies.
At least you know where Bush stands.

You know, it doesn't make me feel better about an evil person if they're open about being evil. They're still evil.

John Kerry is consistent on his positions. Some things in life *are* complicated, believe it or not. The GOPs drive to distill everything into black vs. white, "you're either with us or against us" memes is extremely detrimental to forming real-world solutions for complicated problems.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Cooter said:
At least you know where Bush stands.

Squarely on the wrong side of the debate, stubbornly refuses to move despite all evidence showing that he's wrong, and not demaning the resignation of a DoJ chief who questioned the patriotism of anyone who'd question what the administration was doing.

That, among many reasons, is why I'm voting for Kerry.
 

MIMIC

Banned
Matlock said:
I should go up there for the rally/party, but meh.

Damn! JUST when a debate is held in Cleveland (right down the street from my high school), I gotta be at college in Columbus. :(
 

Cooter

Lacks the power of instantaneous movement
You know, it doesn't make me feel better about an evil person if they're open about being evil. They're still evil.

John Kerry is consistent on his positions. Some things in life *are* complicated, believe it or not. The GOPs drive to distill everything into black vs. white, "you're either with us or against us" memes is extremely detrimental to forming real-world solutions for complicated problems.

President Bush may be many things but evil is not one of them. You lose credibility every time you try and paint Bush as some sort of Hitler clone.


John Kerry is consistent on his positions.

I had to quote this one again because it made me laugh and it is so damn absurd.

Issues being complicated have nothing to do with a person changing his mind 7-8 times a year.

Explain this one: In late August Sen. Kerry said knowing all we know today he would have voted to authorize force to remove Saddam and just two weeks later he said knowing what we know today it was the wrong war, wrong place at the wrong time.

Why would he vote to authorize force if it was the wrong war, wrong place at the wrong time?

Have fun with that one.
 

Jak140

Member
Cooter said:
He did have better things to do.

The fact that he had to stand up there and listen to Kerry manipulate and lie about his positions probably made Bush want to throw up.
Does it hurt to spin that much?
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Cooter said:
Why would he vote to authorize force if it was the wrong war, wrong place at the wrong time?

Have fun with that one.

He voted for the authority to use force, not for Bush to start shit up before the ink was dry, barely giving the UN inspectors time to leave.
 
MIMIC said:
No MSNBC? :(

(I'm very biased. :D)

C-Span did a really good job last time. They kept both candidates on camera constantly, splitscreen style. You can set it to open in a media player window of run in your browser. I don't think you get any more un-biased.
 

nathkenn

Borg Artiste
Explain this one: In late August Sen. Kerry said knowing all we know today he would have voted to authorize force to remove Saddam and just two weeks later he said knowing what we know today it was the wrong war, wrong place at the wrong time.

Why would he vote to authorize force if it was the wrong war, wrong place at the wrong time?

Have fun with that one.

his changed his position just like everyone else(except bush) did after the WMD bullshit was proven false. and exactly like he said in the debate, force was authorised under a certain understanding that bush would stick with the UN and have a good plan, none of which he did
 

Gantz

Banned
JokepoliticsCheney.jpg


Vs

Jokepoliticsedwards.jpg
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
Cooter said:
Explain this one: In late August Sen. Kerry said knowing all we know today he would have voted to authorize force to remove Saddam and just two weeks later he said knowing what we know today it was the wrong war, wrong place at the wrong time.

Why would he vote to authorize force if it was the wrong war, wrong place at the wrong time?

Have fun with that one.

I'm curious have you ever changed your mind about anything at all in your life? Have you ever made a decision, defended it, stuck by it, then later for some reason re-evaluated it and thought... fuck that was wrong... and change your mind?

Just curious.
 

Cooter

Lacks the power of instantaneous movement
He voted for the authority to use force, not for Bush to start shit up before the ink was dry, barely giving the UN inspectors time to leave.

:lol

You sure are drinking the Kerry kool-aid.

When you vote for the authority you vote for war at any time. If you wanted provisions that the UN had to "finish" the job then lobby to have that put in.

Congress doesn't vote for war at a specific time. If you give the President authority then you are saying war is necessary.

This argument is pathetic. If it’s the wrong war, wrong place at the wrong time then why would you possibly vote to give the President the authority to start a war.

Kerry knew damn well what he was voting for and this explanation he is giving now doesn't pass the smell test.

It's like saying I voted to give the President the power to sign a tax cut bill but then complain when he signs it because it was at the wrong time. Don't vote for it then if it is wrong in your mind: Simple as that.

Got to go to an appointment. Be back in a couple.
 
Why would he vote to authorize force if it was the wrong war, wrong place at the wrong time?

Because without the threat of force, negotiating with the regime was getting nowhere. Did you even watch the debate when Kerry spoke? He said it very clear-I authorized the use of force, and the president said he would exhaust all diplomatic options before going to war (which Bush did). Then Bush rushed to war.

It was a war without UN support or a real coalition of allies, without a plan for reconstruction and occupation (or more to the point, an *extremely* poor and incomplete plan.

The Iraq war would have been right if we had exhasuted all other options, had a real plan for reconstruction, and had firm, corroborated evidence that Saddam had the WMDs and was working with terrorists. Instead, we rushed to war quickly without a plan (wrong time) and with intelligence that desparately needed more detail and fact-checking (wrong place).

Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.

Authorization for war was essential. But it was done with the assurance that the President would exhaust his diplomatic options first and that if we used force, we'd use it wisely. We didn't.

There's no flip-flopping or anything going on here. There's no flip-flopping for the 87 billion approproiation, either. It's something that was created as a campaign platform because it's a catchy, disingenous talking point, and there was pretty much nothing positive that the Bush administration can claim for themselves after four years of failing the American people.

As for Bush being like Hitler, he's not like Hitler. Evil doesn't mean your Hitler. Why did you bring Hitler into the conversation anyway?

When you vote fore the authority you vote for war at any time.

Not in this case, chump. He told Congress he'd exhaust all options, that he'd work with the UN. I don't think he did do that, and a lot of people agree on both sides of the aisle agree to that. He needed the authority to give him leverage in negotiations, and to go to war if it was clear that it was the last resort.

That's like saying that when you vote to fund the Selective Service agency in your appropriations bill, you vote to call for a draft at any time. No you don't, you vote to continue a program that can be used as a last resort to bolster America's armed forces.

Your kind of simpleton will be the end of us all, I swear.
 

3rdman

Member
Cooter said:
President Bush may be many things but evil is not one of them. You lose credibility every time you try and paint Bush as some sort of Hitler clone.




I had to quote this one again because it made me laugh and it is so damn absurd.

Issues being complicated have nothing to do with a person changing his mind 7-8 times a year.

Explain this one: In late August Sen. Kerry said knowing all we know today he would have voted to authorize force to remove Saddam and just two weeks later he said knowing what we know today it was the wrong war, wrong place at the wrong time.

Why would he vote to authorize force if it was the wrong war, wrong place at the wrong time?

Have fun with that one.

Simple. The fact of the matter is that you are doing exactly what Bush wants you to do and that is simply to let them think for you. However, if curiosity were to actually take hold in that brain of yours and IF you were actually willing to find out what it was that Kerry said on that day, you would realize that you are but a cog in the dis-information chain the republicans are putting to very good use.

For the record, Kerry said he would still vote for the AUTHORIZATION for war. That authorization came with the stipulation that the President was going to ask the UN for more inspections as well as support from more countries. He did neither and went to war. Kerry feels (and rightly so) that the president in times of crisis should be given support from the senate and to use that authorization to pressure Saddam. Now, I realize everything I just wrote doesn't sound real good in a sound bite and Kerry should have been aware of that, but it only goes to show you just how manipulative the media can be.

So yeah, it was the:
WRONG WAR ... Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11
Wrong place.... Osama is NOT in Iraq
Wrong time... Afghanistan wasn't even stablized before Bush began pulling resources toward a future invasion of Iraq.
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Cooter said:
It's like saying I voted to give the President the power to sign a tax cut bill but then complain when he signs it because it was at the wrong time. Don't vote for it then if it is wrong in your mind: Simple as that.
So if Kerry votes for authorization for a tax cut, so that Bush can put through a small/modest cut for working families, he has no right to complain if Bush turns around and dumps half the federal budget into the upper class?

Would people not also complain if we responded to a call to ban a few trolls by banning half the forum? Well, it's your own fault, since you gave us the authorization to ban... you should have seen it coming!

That's the logic you're using.
 
cooter is a fucking idiot. jesus.

"WHEN YOU VOTE FOR THE AUTHORITY TO WAR, YOU VOTE FOR WAR AT ANYTIME!!!!"

r u serious?

that's not what was stressed by bush and his bill, moron. and here's a kerry quote for you to chew on:

"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm (Hussein) by force, if we ever exhaust ... other options,'' Kerry said 23 months ago on the Senate floor before voting to authorize the force, imploring Bush to take the matter to the United Nations.

"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community," Kerry said, insisting that Bush work with the United Nations. "If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out,'' Kerry said.
 
Cooter said:
At least you know where Bush stands.


Most retarded statement ever. Seriously, if you tell me 1 + 1 = 3 and won't change from that position yes that means I know where you stand and that also means that you are wrong.

There is nothing wrong with conviction or subscribing to an idelogy to shape your beliefs but, that has to be consistent with the reality of the situation around you.
 
Cooter said:
At least you know where Bush stands.

Kerry will pander to whatever group he's speaking to.

Kerry... "It was a mistake to remove Saddam and go into Iraq."

...1 minute later

"Are you saying our troops are dying for a mistake Senator Kerry?"

Kerry.. "Oh well, of course they are not dying for a mistake Jim."

This guy has no conviction in anything he says.

But he served in Vietnam so he must be qualified for the job.

Invading Iraq March 2003: Mistake

Making sure Iraq gets fixed up September 2004: Not a mistake

Why would he vote to authorize force if it was the wrong war, wrong place at the wrong time?

Have fun with that one.
He's talked about this zillions of times. The bill wasn't "We're going to war in a few months." Look at Kerry's own statements at the time; even then he talked about how he hoped this would show the nation acting together, and force weapons inspections. You may believe he should've known better at the time, but he has been consistent.

Hitokage said:
So if Kerry votes for authorization for a tax cut, so that Bush can put through a small/modest cut for working families, he has no right to complain if Bush turns around and dumps half the federal budget into the upper class?

Would people not also complain if we responded to a call to ban a few trolls by banning half the forum? Well, it's your own fault, since you gave us the authorization to ban... you should have seen it coming!

That's the logic you're using.
Good examples.
 

Keio

For a Finer World
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041005/wl_afp/us_vote_bush_speech_041005112654

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Concerned by a loss of momentum after his debate with John Kerry, US President George W. Bush has abruptly scheduled a major speech for Wednesday in hopes of halting the erosion of his lead in the polls.

In a rare, last-minute change in the presidential schedule, Bush has scrapped a planned talk on medical liability and instead will give what the White House called a "significant speech" about the two central issues of the campaign -- the war on terrorism and the economy, The Washington Times reported Tuesday.

The president is said to be eager to rebut Kerry's attacks on such issues, especially those that came during last Thursday's presidential debate, according to The Times.

Now I just hope Cheney loses as badly as Bush did. With the recent Rumsfeld comments denying the Iraq/Al-qaida link it seems very probable.
 

Mrbob

Member
Does the democratic party even want Kerry to win?

Sometimes I feel like they are setting him up to be a lame duck nominee so that they can get Hillary into the office in 2008....
 
"Curses, there's Sen. Patrick Leahy! Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign gave the Vermont Democrat a prime seat Tuesday night at debate between Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John Edwards, a not-so-subtle reminder of Cheney's profane confrontation with Leahy in June.

snip

The vice president refused to apologize. The White House said President Bush had no problem with what Cheney said.

On Tuesday, a top Bush campaign official called Kerry's staff and took issue with Leahy's seating position."

Does anyone know why they don't like Leahy's seating position? They certainly didn't mind curse words.

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/poli...s-6/1097011439326430.xml&storylist=electionmi
 
Does the democratic party even want Kerry to win?

For a lot of us, Kerry wasn't our first, and sometimes second choice. If I could drag and drop a candidate from the primaries to the White House, it would have been Howard Dean.

Most democrats have since come to like Kerry well enough, and the party isn't driven by "anything but Bush" antipathy like it was before the primary season. We're informed, Kerry's platform could be better in some places but we're pragmatic and understand that sweeping social reforms are going to be slow in happening.

Many Democrats would like to see Clinton as the leader of the Democrats in the Senate more than a Presidential candidate, it's just hard to remove Daschle from the seat because without it he'd never win re-election.
 
I'd add that, before the Congressional vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Bush gave a speech wherein he specifically said that passing the authorization would not make war inevitable. So when you say that Kerry should have known that a vote for authorization was necessarily a vote for war, you're saying that Bush was lying and Kerry should have known. I don't necessarily disagree with that, and it might be relevant if the choice were Kerry vs. Dean or some other more antiwar candidate, but it's not exactly a compelling argument in Bush's favor.
 

chimpychi

Member
Cheney: you see..terror terror terror terror 9/11 terror terror terror Saddam terror terror Iraq WMD's terrorists terror terror
 
MIMIC said:
Cheney didn't answer the question at all.

Agreed... although, I must say I am a bit taken aback by how forcefull Edwards is going after Cheney... not that I think it's a bad thing.. just suprised.
 

MetatronM

Unconfirmed Member
I can't stand Cheney. Just look at how he speaks sort of under his breath, as if he's bored with the very notion of having to deal with debating policy. And look at how he can't even look up as he gives his response. He looks down at his desk.

He already looks A) completely uninterested and B) thoroughly untrustworthy.
 

GG-Duo

Member
Looks like Edwards is doing Talking Points tonight. Interesting.

no connection. no connection. no connection.
it's a good point to hammer home.
 

Gruco

Banned
Why is it that I roll my eyes with every response, know exactly what each candidate is going to say, and yet can't bring myself to change the fucking channel?
 
Wasn't Cheney against funding the Gulf War too? I thought that was part of Kerry's rebutall to Bush's attack that he has cut weapons funding consistantly
 
Gruco said:
Why is it that I roll my eyes with every response, know exactly what each candidate is going to say, and yet can't bring myself to change the fucking channel?

Because it's reality TV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom