Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Results 1 to 35 of 35
  1. #1
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546

    VP debate thread<====

    What did you all think? Cheyney seemed to be on the defensive the entire time and sounded like a broken record. He also seemed very less poised; slumping and resting his head on his hands. I'm sure he's glad there is only 1 debate between them.

    The issues were more of the same with exception of Halliburton and the Irani sanctions.

    Oh yeah, same sex marriage came up as well. This I couldn't give a **** about, it is no business of mine and no business of the gov.

    What were your impressions?
    Last edited by symatech; 10-06-2004 at 09:37 AM.

  2. #2
    EastCoaster's Avatar
    EastCoaster is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,798
    I actually had to miss it... can somebody give me an honest non-partison brief on the debate?

  3. #3
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by EastCoaster
    I actually had to miss it... can somebody give me an honest non-partison brief on the debate?
    no...

  4. #4
    OGPackin's Avatar
    OGPackin is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    6,022
    Quote Originally Posted by EastCoaster
    I actually had to miss it... can somebody give me an honest non-partison brief on the debate?

    Here are some Excerpts from the debate... http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...cs/9844324.htm

    Transcript http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=...&u_sid=1222597

    OG
    Last edited by OGPackin; 10-06-2004 at 10:31 AM.

  5. #5
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546

    this is the entire debate

    download realplayer and go to the washingtonpost website. you can view the debate form there.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...100504-16v.htm
    Last edited by symatech; 10-06-2004 at 10:31 AM. Reason: wrong link

  6. #6
    EastCoaster's Avatar
    EastCoaster is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,798
    thanks

  7. #7
    Cycleon is offline AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Wherever necessary
    Posts
    8,159
    dont know what it looked like on TV but on radio, Cheney tore Edwards a new one - but Edwards probably looked better on TV - he also did a nice summary argument (good trial lawyer to be sure) - he also got some good licks in on the VP but overall, if you look at what was said, Cheney clobbered him

    Can anyone seriously see Edwards stepping into the Presidency if something were to happen? (in a day of terrorism, its far more possible) - now some of you might not like what Cheney would do but NOBODY doubts that he can do it.

  8. #8
    956Vette is offline AR-Elite Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    10,154
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by CYCLEON
    Can anyone seriously see Edwards stepping into the Presidency if something were to happen? (in a day of terrorism, its far more possible) - now some of you might not like what Cheney would do but NOBODY doubts that he can do it.
    Cheney was strong, poised, confident and had some great responses for Edwards. The best being the statement about the casualties in iraq

    Bush/Cheney '04

  9. #9
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by CYCLEON
    dont know what it looked like on TV but on radio, Cheney tore Edwards a new one - but Edwards probably looked better on TV - he also did a nice summary argument (good trial lawyer to be sure) - he also got some good licks in on the VP but overall, if you look at what was said, Cheney clobbered him

    Can anyone seriously see Edwards stepping into the Presidency if something were to happen? (in a day of terrorism, its far more possible) - now some of you might not like what Cheney would do but NOBODY doubts that he can do it.

    of undecidecd voters ~43% thought that edwards won, compared to ~25% that thought cheney won. i dont think your view is unbiased.

  10. #10
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    Cheney would hang his lesbian daughter if he had the chance......he is one cold SOB

  11. #11
    EastCoaster's Avatar
    EastCoaster is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,798
    Quote Originally Posted by CYCLEON
    now some of you might not like what Cheney would do but NOBODY doubts that he can do it.
    I doubt it.

    Anytime and everytime something happens of importance or high magnitude, he's sent off to Camp David where nobody can find him.... that is IF he didnt already have another heart attack. Yea, he's a real stong leader.

  12. #12
    Juggernaut's Avatar
    Juggernaut is offline AR Jester
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    6,545
    I'm no fan of Cheney but I thought he handled himself well. I expected more fomr Edwards but he threw a couple of good ones across the table.

    Here is what I think would have been best. We keep the prez debates as is but for the veeps they have to duke it out. Three fifteen minute rounds one with the most punches (that make contact). Edward would be woried about the face and Cheney can't take body shots. My guess is if Edwards can keep moving and stay on his feet he'll do better than Cheney. Cheney has a longer reach so his jabs could do good damage. hahahahahahahahaha

  13. #13
    BASK8KACE is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,502
    I was in the gym, so I missed it. But I got home in time to hear the pundits discuss the debate. Apparently, Edwards did exactly what he needed to do, which was to prove that he, a career lawyer, could stand toe to toe and debate well with a seasoned politician.

    The pundits compared Edwards' task and method to the late president JFK (Kennedy). Just as Kennedy was young and new to the world of politics, he needed to convince Americans that, despite his youth, he had the experience and gravitas to be a president of the USA. As did JFK, Edwards apparently has shown that he has the chops (or as the pundits say, he has demonstrated gravitas).

  14. #14
    OGPackin's Avatar
    OGPackin is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    6,022

  15. #15
    Cycleon is offline AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Wherever necessary
    Posts
    8,159
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    of undecidecd voters ~43% thought that edwards won, compared to ~25% that thought cheney won. i dont think your view is unbiased.

    you must be getting your fact polls from dan rather - is that a poll of the CBS news staff perhaps?

  16. #16
    carbs-rule is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    300
    Cheney won it hands down. Edwards didn't do as bad as Bush, but Cheney has more experience doing these type of things than anyone in Washington.

  17. #17
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by CYCLEON
    you must be getting your fact polls from dan rather - is that a poll of the CBS news staff perhaps?
    CNN from CBS actually

    A CBS News poll specifically focused on uncommitted voters and found 41 percent of respondents said they deemed Edwards the winner, 28 percent chose Cheney, and 31 percent said it was a tie.

    CBS based its poll on a "nationally representative sample of 178 debate watchers ... who are either undecided about who to vote for or who have a preference but say they could still change their minds." The margin of error is 7 percentage points.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Copyright 2004 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

  18. #18
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    I though Cheney would destroy Edwards. But I was suprised by Edwards, he always had good come backs for Cheney's attacks, and attacked Cheney alot which I didnt expect.

    Cheney was always silent with no rebuttal on the Halliburton Issue.

    But overall this debate was a tie.

  19. #19
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Cheney was undoubtedly the dominant character in the debate. Edwards made some good points and was convincing at times, downright snotnosed brattish at others.

    Kerry should have picked a more expierienced senator. This good-looks, JFK bull**** isn't going to win him the presidency, he already has the female vote.

    It's all Bush and Cheney from here on out. Kerry and Edwards had the chance to really nail these guys on foreign policy. Senator Kerry did an outstanding job of that in the debate, whereas Edwards I felt did not.

    Domestic policy heavily favors GW and Cheney as the vast majority of Americans still favor limited government and free market economy. It will be very hard for the Kerry team to hide the fact that they take their domestic policy straight from the Manifesto. Kerry should just switch out Edwars with Hillary now so they can color coordinate and wear sickle&hammer t-shirts to the next round of debates.

    We have 2 hands full of dog**** and need to decide which pile smells better. I hate dog****.

  20. #20
    Tock's Avatar
    Tock is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    7,103
    I thought both guys made good points. Cheney obviously is more experienced in the ins and outs of Washington, but Edwards has more experience now than what Bush had when he was elected president. So, folks who voted for an inexperienced Bush in 2000 shouldn't object to a more experienced Edwards for VP in 2004.

    I though both guys dodged the gay question . . . Somehow, I think that Cheney favors gay rights (thanks to being educated on the issue by his lesbian daughter), but since he can't risk running off the Religious Right, he ain't gonna say so. And he didn't.
    When asked the first gay question, Edwards spent most of his time continuing his response from an earlier question. When asked the second gay question, he pretty fumbled through it, and didn't show much familiarity with the issue.

    To me, the choice for VP is between an experienced guy who knows how government works and wants to take it in the wrong direction (policy-wise), and a guy going in the right direction but will need advisors to help him get there.
    Easy choice for me . . .

    -Tock

  21. #21
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Tock
    I thought both guys made good points. Cheney obviously is more experienced in the ins and outs of Washington, but Edwards has more experience now than what Bush had when he was elected president. So, folks who voted for an inexperienced Bush in 2000 shouldn't object to a more experienced Edwards for VP in 2004.

    I though both guys dodged the gay question . . . Somehow, I think that Cheney favors gay rights (thanks to being educated on the issue by his lesbian daughter), but since he can't risk running off the Religious Right, he ain't gonna say so. And he didn't.
    When asked the first gay question, Edwards spent most of his time continuing his response from an earlier question. When asked the second gay question, he pretty fumbled through it, and didn't show much familiarity with the issue.

    To me, the choice for VP is between an experienced guy who knows how government works and wants to take it in the wrong direction (policy-wise), and a guy going in the right direction but will need advisors to help him get there.
    Easy choice for me . . .

    -Tock
    I'd pose the gay question like this: Did you guys know that there is absolutely no constitutional power enumerated to any branch of the federal government that would allow you to address such an issue, that you would be a criminal for legislating one way or the other? Betcha didn't know that, huh?

    Then I'd bitch slap both of them into submission. I would make a great debate moderator.


    On a different note, anyone notice that Kerry's NSA is a black woman? She looks kind of like, well like another black female NSA. Her last name is Rice. Try to fit the chances of that in your head. I HATE POLITICS.

  22. #22
    symatech's Avatar
    symatech is offline Retired Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    not where I want to be
    Posts
    7,546
    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    On a different note, anyone notice that Kerry's NSA is a black woman? She looks kind of like, well like another black female NSA. Her last name is Rice. Try to fit the chances of that in your head. I HATE POLITICS.
    Wait, are you saying C. Rice is switching teams so to speak?

  23. #23
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by symatech
    Wait, are you saying C. Rice is switching teams so to speak?

    No brother, I'm saying that there is another female, black, Phd, that is going to be Kerry's NSA. I'm not kidding, and her last name is Rice.

    Utterly repugnant.

  24. #24
    BASK8KACE is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,502
    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    No brother, I'm saying that there is another female, black, Phd, that is going to be Kerry's NSA. I'm not kidding, and her last name is Rice.

    Utterly repugnant.
    What's repugnant? And what's so hard to accept about another black/minority female in that role?

    If two white men had been in the role--one right after the other, would that be shocking?

    Please, clarify where you're coming from with these statements.

  25. #25
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by BASK8KACE
    What's repugnant? And what's so hard to accept about another black/minority female in that role?
    Nothing is hard to accept about another such individual in that role. I won't do the math, but I'm sure you can piece together that the chances of such a coincidence are amazing.


    Quote Originally Posted by BASK8KACE
    If two white men had been in the role--one right after the other, would that be shocking?
    Of course not, the numbers are much more believable as white males are a statistical majority in the US. Once more, black females to my knowlege don't exactly dominate the foreign policy and security issue in the think tanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by BASK8KACE
    Please, clarify where you're coming from with these statements.
    John Edwards was chosen to be the VP by Kerry for reasons in addition to his position in the Senate. If Kerry wanted the person who would suit his ideology best he should have picked Ted, but he didn't. He picked a young, good looking southern gentlemen with comparatively little government expierience. Edwards brings a disproportionate group of voters to the table.

    I'll draw that parrallel, you can connect the dots.

  26. #26
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    Nothing is hard to accept about another such individual in that role. I won't do the math, but I'm sure you can piece together that the chances of such a coincidence are amazing.




    Of course not, the numbers are much more believable as white males are a statistical majority in the US. Once more, black females to my knowlege don't exactly dominate the foreign policy and security issue in the think tanks.



    John Edwards was chosen to be the VP by Kerry for reasons in addition to his position in the Senate. If Kerry wanted the person who would suit his ideology best he should have picked Ted, but he didn't. He picked a young, good looking southern gentlemen with comparatively little government expierience. Edwards brings a disproportionate group of voters to the table.

    I'll draw that parrallel, you can connect the dots.

    careful, if you back pedal any harder, you will break your bike.

  27. #27
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    careful, if you back pedal any harder, you will break your bike.

    No one is backpedaling, I explained what I meant, as Bask8case asked that I do.


    What exactly would I be backpedaling away from? Is there something I said that I should retract? Please enlighten me.

  28. #28
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    No one is backpedaling, I explained what I meant, as Bask8case asked that I do.


    What exactly would I be backpedaling away from? Is there something I said that I should retract? Please enlighten me.

    let me take a stab at it. your first statement was "utterly repugnant".
    here is the definition of the power word: Arousing disgust or aversion; offensive or repulsive. and then your second statement was "Nothing is hard to accept about another such individual in that role". does that enlighten you?

  29. #29
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    let me take a stab at it. your first statement was "utterly repugnant".
    here is the definition of the power word: Arousing disgust or aversion; offensive or repulsive. and then your second statement was "Nothing is hard to accept about another such individual in that role". does that enlighten you?

    No, not even close. You're reaching for something that played no part of anything that I stated. Of course, you've already made a value judgement about me, so go ahead and read me my Rights because obviously I'm guilty of predjudicial thinking simply by addressing a sensitive issue.

  30. #30
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    No, not even close. You're reaching for something that played no part of anything that I stated. Of course, you've already made a value judgement about me, so go ahead and read me my Rights because obviously I'm guilty of predjudicial thinking simply by addressing a sensitive issue.
    im not judging you on anything. you simply said that putting another black woman in as nsa was "repugnant:. and then you said you see no problem with another black woman there. correct me if im wrong.

  31. #31
    inheritmylife's Avatar
    inheritmylife is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a state of denial
    Posts
    2,983
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    im not judging you on anything. you simply said that putting another black woman in as nsa was "repugnant:. and then you said you see no problem with another black woman there. correct me if im wrong.

    You tried to call me out on something just like Bask8case did, and now you are pretending that you are just finding dicrepancy in my posts.

    Stand by what you said. If you think what I said is racist, than say it. I won't agree with you, but at least I'll know how my post was interpreted so that I'll know what it is I'm defending myself against.

  32. #32
    BASK8KACE is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,502
    Quote Originally Posted by sin
    im not judging you on anything. you simply said that putting another black woman in as nsa was "repugnant:. and then you said you see no problem with another black woman there. correct me if im wrong.
    Sin,
    I agree. Inheritmylife is backpedalling.

    Inheritmylife,
    I didn't "try" to call you out. I have called you out.

    You're opinion does not offend me, but it clearly shows that you're ignorant about certain things. I would have more respect for you had you discussed your true opinion and had not sidestepped away from the issue. If you have an opinion, at least be man enough to stand by it.

    Your statement about a second black/minority possibly being put in Rice's current position clearly shows that you think that there's no way in hell that two black/minority women could possibly be that qualified and easily found. It seems to imply that someone had to search far and wide to find what you proably think is "the rarest of the rare"--an educated black/minority--to "stuff" into that.

    There are not many people of any race that can jump into that position and hold it successfully. Due partly to many facets of this country's history, there probably are fewer people of color than people of no color that can step into that position. But, that doesn't change the fact that there are many minorities, blacks included, that have the qualifications for that job. As time goes by, and more minorities slowly break out of a psychological and socio-econoic vicious cycle (broken by lower class, middle class and upperclass blacks and other minorities), its becoming ever more possible to put minorities in powerful roles--not based on color, but based on qualifications.

    Everyone that is placed in a political position gets that job for many reasons: qualifications, family name, network of support, corruption, race (both people of color and people of no color), etcetera. However, just because a black/minority is placed in a high level position, does not mean that s/he was underqualified and stuffed into a position only based on race. Did you say this overtly? No, but your tone and delivery of your message clearly implies that you think this way.

    I don't buy into the myth that there are no blacks/minorities that can compete at the highest levels of society. They exist, and in the coming years--if things continue to improve--we'll see more minorities surface in roles like these.
    Last edited by BASK8KACE; 10-09-2004 at 11:09 PM.

  33. #33
    sin's Avatar
    sin
    sin is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    here
    Posts
    1,085
    Quote Originally Posted by inheritmylife
    You tried to call me out on something just like Bask8case did, and now you are pretending that you are just finding dicrepancy in my posts.

    Stand by what you said. If you think what I said is racist, than say it. I won't agree with you, but at least I'll know how my post was interpreted so that I'll know what it is I'm defending myself against.
    why dont you just respond, instead of going on some half-assed offensive? i dont think your a racist, you could just as easily be ignorant. why dont you just simply explain what you meant.

  34. #34
    Cycleon is offline AR-Hall of Famer / Retired
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Wherever necessary
    Posts
    8,159
    ummm........... lets see - if Kerry had someone who was black, a senior general and just happend to have the last name of "Powell" htat they were leaking might be the Sec State - I would also snort in disgust - why? because I would very strongly suspect that they were doing it to pull name recognition from black voters. Now if it were just another general who happened to be black but had a last name of Carlin, etc, I dont think it would matter.

    Lets see - Democrats=speak about hiring "black Americans" to high level offices (why dont those vile, racist republicans do something?) Republicans=actually appoint 2 "black americans" to the 2 highest foriegn policy offices in the USA - and does anyone think that they were appointed to "fill an affirmative action slot"? (which means "black people are too stupid to compete on their own so us ever so intelligent massa white folk academics will give them some sort of handout but make sure we keep telling them that they are really too stupid to do it on their own")
    No, I honestly cant think of anyone Bush could have picked that would have been better suited for Rice's and Powell's job, black, white or otherwise - and thats how people should be hired. These liberals are all talk, no action

  35. #35
    BASK8KACE is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,502
    Quote Originally Posted by CYCLEON
    ummm........... lets see - if Kerry had someone who was black, a senior general and just happend to have the last name of "Powell" htat they were leaking might be the Sec State - I would also snort in disgust - why? because I would very strongly suspect that they were doing it to pull name recognition from black voters. Now if it were just another general who happened to be black but had a last name of Carlin, etc, I dont think it would matter.

    Lets see - Democrats=speak about hiring "black Americans" to high level offices (why dont those vile, racist republicans do something?) Republicans=actually appoint 2 "black americans" to the 2 highest foriegn policy offices in the USA - and does anyone think that they were appointed to "fill an affirmative action slot"? (which means "black people are too stupid to compete on their own so us ever so intelligent massa white folk academics will give them some sort of handout but make sure we keep telling them that they are really too stupid to do it on their own")
    No, I honestly cant think of anyone Bush could have picked that would have been better suited for Rice's and Powell's job, black, white or otherwise - and thats how people should be hired. These liberals are all talk, no action
    If you think the last name of a person is what black voters need to recognize a minority, you might stop a moment to realize that most of the people stepping into the booths are able to SEE quite well.

    If anything, someone having the same name in the same position for two separate parties would confuse people (black and white alike). Just look back in this thread to find the post where someone asked if Rice was playing for both teams.

    People are changing their views about race. That's great.

    I still want inheritmylife to explain his comments, which seem more based in ignorance and gut reaction than an intelligent consideration of the political/racial/socio-economic atmosphere in America.

    As far as the Republicans being looked at as "massa whites:" The republicans have far more to gain by using token minorities than the Democrats. But not many people are looking at Republicans as "massa whites." Blacks are not the only ones that need to let go of the past in order to move this country forward, Cycleon.

    I believe the minorities elected to office by the republicans were qualified--if they hadn't been qualified, the Republicans (whether true or not) would have been accused of trying to set up a minority for failure (by the press, by minority groups, and by many people of no color). Considering the republicans have never been sympathetic to anyone else's needs but the richest of the rich, why would they suddenly change? Every part of the Republican agenda focuses on ignoring minorities (whether rich or poor), excluding the poor (whether white, black or other), and helping the richest of the rich.
    Last edited by BASK8KACE; 10-10-2004 at 04:08 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •