| Vice Presidential Debate [message #118549] |
Tue, 05 October 2004 18:32  |
 |
Fabian
Messages: 821
Registered: April 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Who do you think won? Any highlights or random thoughts?
My favorite part was when Dick said he couldn't answer in 30 seconds, to which he got the response: Well that's all you're going to get. ...Priceless
I thought it was really wierd when Dick reponded to Edwards, thanking him for his kind words about his family, and then stopped.
As far as who won, I think they were pretty evenly matched. IMO, it was nice to see a republican voice that didn't have to deal with communicating clearly. However, when they got off the topic of Iraq, a lot of their answers seemed to be in conjunction with one another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Vice Presidential Debate [message #118561] |
Tue, 05 October 2004 20:15  |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SEAL |
Educated responses only, please.
|
Edwards received his own ass on a plate..
better?
|
|
|
|
| Vice Presidential Debate [message #118563] |
Tue, 05 October 2004 20:29 |
|
|
KERRAYDWARDZ WUZ FAG
I suck cock and love it... absolutely love it. And I just got banned for being too immature to be allowed to post here.
|
|
|
|
| Vice Presidential Debate [message #118575] |
Wed, 06 October 2004 03:27 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Nodbugger |
Cheney answered the question by actually saying what will fix it, not making up some plan that will will never be explained.
|
I don't think you know what you're talking about at all. You said this about the first debate, and it made no sense. You said it about this debate, and it doesn't make much sense, either. How did Cheney explain his plans while Edwards did not?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Vice Presidential Debate [message #118579] |
Wed, 06 October 2004 04:12 |
 |
Doitle
Messages: 1723
Registered: February 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star)
Moderator/Captain |
|
|
Create a post about your plan for the future of this forum without mentining your canidate's names.
Me and John Kerry have a strong plan for the future of this forum.
"You just said his name"
Oh? Uh, I broke the rule I guess *laugh*
I was laughing when he kept doing that.
I agree that the debate went largely in Cheyney's favor. Edwards just couldn't connect on the points he connected on. When he talked about healthcare and lawsuits and said because he was a malpractise lawyer he had experience. Then Cheyney fires back that it actually happened to him. He was injured on the job, he had no life insurance.
After viewing this debate though, I'm much more satisfied that Cheyney's the VP. Before this you never know really what he's on about, what he thinks, or what he does, besides his coronarys, strokes, and heart attacks. Now however you get to see him speaking, thinking, and addressing questions in a very adroit fashion.
Twas pretty cool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Vice Presidential Debate [message #118634] |
Wed, 06 October 2004 11:46 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
The question was about job loss. Cheney said that in order to help people get jobs they wanted to make sure they were more educated. Hence the education reference. It WAS relevant and Edwards was just trying to make him look like an ass.
When Edwards was asked how they expect to get more allies on their side after France and Germany already said that they aren't going to send troops if Kerry gets elected, Edwards NEVER answered the question and went around the answer about allies entirely.
Edwards broke the rules twice in that question, interrupted Cheney at least twice, and ripped a piece of paper while Cheney was talking. Not cool.
The reason Cheney didn't counter-respond is because he and the President do not see eye to eye on the matter of gay marriage. He explained what he believes is not what the president believes, but he stands by the President. Edwards gave he and Kerry's position, Cheney declined to argue it because he wasn't in disagreement.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Vice Presidential Debate [message #118659] |
Wed, 06 October 2004 13:40 |
Traingye
Messages: 20
Registered: August 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
|
I argee Cheney did win overall but it wasn't an OMGWTFPWN. Stop letting your political view distort what you hear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Vice Presidential Debate [message #118717] |
Wed, 06 October 2004 20:16 |
 |
Javaxcx
Messages: 1943
Registered: February 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Definately not as polar in the winner/loser of last week's debate. But I think Cheney probably came out on top by a narrow to modest margin.
Frankly, Edwards is nothing but a little kid in a big chair, and he just doesn't have the experience or guise at this point to be able to go against Cheney effectively.
| Quote: |
My favorite part was when Dick said he couldn't answer in 30 seconds, to which he got the response: Well that's all you're going to get. ...Priceless
|
That's just irony. And if you or anyone else doesn't get it, *ahem*, well, you're probably a moron anyway.
| Quote: |
I thought it was really wierd when Dick reponded to Edwards, thanking him for his kind words about his family, and then stopped.
|
You might call it a liberal trap on Edward's part. Cheney is fairly public about his views on gay marriage, and those views contrast that of the President. If Cheney said ANYTHING to agree solefully with Edwards, it would leave the image that he is working against his partner. He caught onto it right away, and that is a pretty good debating skill on his part.
All in all though:
Besides, Cheney was angrily speaking through his teeth at one point fairly close to the beginning of the debate. That probably set the school boy back into his chair.
Sniper Extraordinaire
Read the FUD Rules before you come in and make an ass of yourself.
All your base are belong to us.
You have no chance to survive make your time.
|
|
|
|
| Vice Presidential Debate [message #118718] |
Wed, 06 October 2004 20:26 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I thought the moderator was terrible. Jim Lehrer's the only person who ever really does a good job in his role.
Other than that, I think it was more or less a draw, and I doubt it will matter at all.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Vice Presidential Debate [message #118889] |
Thu, 07 October 2004 18:45 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
How would Gore have been a worse president than Bush, gbull? You obviously know.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
