Cheney lied, Edwards lied, Cheney's dog lied...wait, what??

Re: Cheney lied, Edwards lied, Cheney's dog lied...wait, wha

I actually found the presidential debate far more interesting. This one was a little disgusting with all the mud being thrown. I and my housemates were very excited about this one but we all gravitated away from the tv about halfway through. Cheney did a very good job and sounded quite intelligent but he masterfully twisted a lot of facts around on Edwards. Edwards sounded like a broken record as well as a somewhat inept attack dog. I got the impression Cheney had won before I walked away in disgust over the lack of solid content being discussed and a lack of either candidate actually coming close to answering the questions they were being asked.

Edwards: He's lying to you.

Cheney: Well, he's being innacurate.

Edwards: There, you just lied again!

Cheney: I don't even know where to begin in refuting all that.

Edwards: Liar!

Cheney: No, you lied first!

*insert fist fight here*

 

Re: Cheney lied, Edwards lied, Cheney's dog lied...wait, wha

Cheney: Go :cussing: yourself, you liar! :lol:

 

Re: Cheney lied, Edwards lied, Cheney's dog lied...wait, wha

I had not watched either of the two debates to date. I would just have become enraged and started yelling, and then the blood pressure, and all of that.

I made up my mind back in December 2000 that I would be voting for the candidate that best fit the descriptor Not George W Bush, while still having a snowballs chance in a Prius thermos bottle of winning the election.

As long as whats-his-name the Democrat continues to not be GWB, I will vote for him.

 

haha, I agree Steve, but you missed an amazing thing last night.

The topic of gay marriage was brought up (oh I know, everyone's yelling "NO, not another thread on gay marriage!" at me, but as Cheney says so eloquently, 'go f yourself'), and Cheney was literally left speechless. Not many politicians have been in that situation.

Of course, Cheney could've politically won that argument. Edwards mentioned how the dems are against it, and he mentioned that he thinks Cheney is like many Americans, who have gay family members and don't feel they should be mistreated by constitutional amendments or any laws removing rights. Cheney only responded with a mute 'Thank you' to the senator, and they moved on.

Cheney *had* the chance to win a political point by going along the lines of 'hey, look, I don't always agree with the president, and when I don't, I let him know it plainly. this is one of those issues, and I think america agrees with me on this, that the vice president shouldn't always be in direct agreement with the president, we need to have debates at the highest level of our country to make sure policy being put forth is the best possible, and this is a pure example of that.'

Of course it wouldn't have been true, but neither was anything else that came out of his mouth last night. Ah well, what can you expect when he can't even send us to the right website. Everyone knows Cheney *meant* to say priuschat.com last night, not factcheck.com.

-m.

 

I was with what GreenSteve above said until I started listening to Kerry. He has flubbed a lot of speechs and comes off very wooden, but I've seen two speechs from beginning to end and I'm very impressed.

I'm no longer voting against Bush, I'm now voting FOR KERRY.

During the Cuban missile crisis we now know that Kennedy got a lot of advice to bomb Cuba and bomb the Russian ships approaching Cuba with missiles. If GW Bush was President in 1960, there is no doubt in my mind that most of the USA would still not be inhabitable. I would be dead, and most of you reading this, never born.

Now we are involved in a great war to fight terrorism and GW Bush goes and puts that war on hold to go fight in Iraq.

If GW Bush wanted to make us safe, why are we not tripping over geiger counters in our airports? Why are there not anthrax detectors in all our Post Offices? Why are we in Iraq when they never attacked us?

It just might be impossible for the USA to get the rest of the world to help us in Iraq. But if it's possible, which one of these two is more apt to get it done?

 

Re: Cheney lied, Edwards lied, Cheney's dog lied...wait, wha

I'm very well familiar with Senator Kerry. I was a genuine pinko fag peacenik hippie during the time that he was also protesting the Vietnam war. I did not hold it against him then or now, because it was a war of imperialist aggression.

I also lived in Massachusetts for many years, so I'm aware of his time in the Senate.

The thing is, I don't believe it is possible for any man, no matter how sincere, to serve 20 years in the US Senate without becoming a tool of corporate interests.

Granted, Kerry is not a warmongering moron Jeebus freak, so that is in his favor, but I certainly expect the poor to keep on getting poorer and the corporations to keep on writing the laws if he is elected.

And I know that the price of oil will be going up....

 

While I tend to agree with you in general, especially the part about corporate interests, I see people like Kerry as part of an evolutionary process.

I see the 20th century in the USA as the century where this country learned the best way to greatness was in empowering the common man. The result was the largest and strongest middle class in the history of this planet.

But the progress stopped (ironically) with that great man "of the people" Ronald Reagan. With his charm and charisma, RR succeeded in stopping that empowerment of regular people and began the process of giving the USA lock stock and barrel back to the ruling class.

Again, all of this was a process. Now I'm not so naive to think that the people really ran the USA when RR became president. Yes, I know that the rich elite still pretty much ran our lives, but we regular people still had more control certainly than we did in 1900 and we were still moving slowly in the direction of more and more real control over our personal destinies.

Through all of world history, Governments existed to meet the needs of the ruling class. The 20th century in the USA was an experiment in a Government meeting the needs of the people instead. I happen to believe it was a phenomenally successful experiment. But the ruling class saw it differently and now they have their man in the White House who is moving this country back to the days of McKinley.

I'm not sure Kerry can reverse it that is very true. And I'm not even totally sure that he wants to reverse it, but in those 2 speechs that I was referring to, I saw evidence that he might. But even if he doesn't reverse this trend towards Mckinley/Hooverism, he will at least slow down the process.

And hopefully we can slow it down enough for some leader to come along, not unlike RR, who has the charisma and charm and eloquence, like RR, but unlike RR, a man who really does represent the common man and not just pretend to. Is Kerry that man? I doubt it but he just might be. But in any case, 4 more years of Bush will for all intents and purposes repeal all the social progress of the 20th century.

And then it just might be wise for our grandkids to start learning Chinese.

 

Speaking of the debate... has anyone heard about this Cheney flub? It's pure genius at work.

http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/4314...08|reuters.html

I think that Cheney abstained from debating Edwards on the gay marriage issue because there was nothing he could really argue. He agreed with everything Edwards said.

 

I am still undecided between Kerry and David Cobb, the Green Party candidate. If I vote for Kerry, it will be out of disgust with the people Bush surrounds himself with. Ashcroft, Cheney, etc. And in the hopes of preventing more reactionaries from getting onto the Supreme Court.

But When Kerry insists that we needed to fight this stupid, pointless, illegal, and immoral war (only that he would have done it "differently") I am so disgusted with him and the party that nominated him that I'm not sure I could look myself in the mirror if I voted for him. And, as noted by other posters, he's just as much a prostitute of the corporations as Bush is. And while he is less of a gay-basher than Bush, he refuses to advocate equal rights.

The Republicans are only going to keep getting worse, and the Democrats are going to stay close to them, counting on progressives to support them as the lesser of evils, and as long as we do that, things will continue to get worse and worse and worse.

We need a new, progressive, party. And the sooner we vote Green the sooner the slide to the right will be reined in.

Not that my vote matters. Regardless of who I vote for, my vote does not count.

 

Daniel .. Think about it .. Kerry MUST make a clear statement to all those who wish ill will to the U.S. that regardless of the election outcome they can expect no reprieve. To do otherwise would be to court disaster.

Even I, a long time Republican, have felt very strongly, all along, that we should not have gone into Iraq. Now we've learned that every reason given for going into this war was simply not true. Furthermore, we now know the administration knew, even before the war, that this was the case. I can only guess at reasons as to why Bush and Cheney wanted to go to war, but now we all know that it wasn't for the reasons given.

It's terribly important to our country that we have a president who will NOT take us into a war unless it's absolutely necessary. It's also, regardless of what Bush and Cheney say, terribly important that we make our case to the international community. We need their support. It's proving out, even now in Iraq, that, unless we want to reinstate the draft, our resources will be severely stressed, even in battle with a country the size of California with 2/3s its population.

Please keep in mind, if you vote for any third party candidate, even though it's a protest vote, it's a vote taken away from Kerry-Edwards, thus it's a vote for the Bush-Cheney ticket. It's a vote for more of the same.

This, by the way, will be the first time I'll have voted for the Democratic candidate since Eisenhower was president.

 

In Plan Of Attack, by Bob Woodward, he claims that immediately after Bush's inauguration he called for a plan on invading Iraq. This was obviously long before 9/11. He used 9/11 as an excuse for a war he had planned on for quite some time.

 

Re: Cheney lied, Edwards lied, Cheney's dog lied...wait, wha

A lie repeated 1,000 times is still a lie.

Vested interests never want to use critical thinking or take on another's perspective. As humans we readily rationalize from our individual perspectives. Cheney is in denial of his own health habits (long-term heart trouble), you cannot expect him to take a different perspective in politics.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pjo1966\";p=\"43926)</div>

:iagree I believe that 9/11 gave them the cover they needed to attack Iraq. They just used Afghanistan as a diversion, the real goal was always Iraq for GWB and all of his father's cronies, who just happened to be involved in the first war with Iraq.

 

There have been a lot of good posts here about Bush's lies and distortions.

Yet he still may win the next election. And if any of you have 14, 15 , 16 or 17 year olds, be prepared to sacrifice them for "Bush's foreign policy".

(Notice I didn't say "the war on terror". Except for Aphganistan I still have no idea what Bush's foreign policy has to do with the war on terror.)

So I think the key question isn't who can write the best criticism of GW Bush, it's how are we going to get the "salvagable" people in the so called Red states to wake up?

Isn't that the real question?

And how do we convince those who are still considering voting for Bush "by Proxy" by voting for Nader or Cobb just how dangerous it is this time around?



GW Bush....the most dangerous American President since Jefferson Davis.