OT: Non-partisan debate observation
Gould 0738
(although I do have a favorite horse in the race), here's what I think I saw.
Dick Cheney:
Pro: Was concise and lucid. Spoke with authority. Demonstrated that he is
*indeed* the brains behind the Bush Administration.
Con: Until the closing argument, obviously well rehearsed, he spent most of the
time looking down at the table and wringing his hands. Looked like somebody
plotting an evil deed. He seemed very uncomfortable at any time that he was not
actively attacking Edwards/Kerry. (Which wasn't all that often)
******
John Edwards:
Pro: Was not intimidated by Cheney. Had a clear vision of domestic and
international problems and outlined plans that indicate some careful
consideration has been employed in identifying solutions. Certainly appeared
younger and more energetic than the sitting vice president.
Con: Confused "billions" with "trillions", kept pointing at Cheney and
diverting the viewer's attention from himself.
*********************
Overall conclusion: Pretty much a draw. Cheney has a more powerful personality,
but is diminished by his need to toe the administration's lyne and proclaim
that all has gone according to plan in Iraq, and that our invasion of Iraq
"reduces the chance that we'll have a nuclear explosion in an American city."
Had they been debating a topic where there is no public track record to
flagrantly contradict his claims, Cheney might have been the winner.
***************
Classiest moment in the debate:
John Edwards realized (a few seconds after he began speakng) that he had been
unfairly awarded an extra 30-second response. While he could have continued to
try to make an extra point he ceded the floor the comply with the rules of the
debate. We could use a few more elected officials who value fair play and
respect the rules.
Gary Warner
"Gould 0738" <goul...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041005232604...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> Classiest moment in the debate:
>
> John Edwards realized (a few seconds after he began speakng) that he had
been
> unfairly awarded an extra 30-second response. While he could have
continued to
> try to make an extra point he ceded the floor the comply with the rules of
the
> debate. We could use a few more elected officials who value fair play and
> respect the rules.
>
Yea, but Edwards also interrupted Cheney while Cheney was speaking. That
is a clear violation of both the rules of the debate and common courtesy.
Personally,
I don't subtract or award many points for one small gaff or one small
positive action
such as these. Anyone can make a simple mistake.
Gould 0738
>daughter.
>
>
A "shot"?
Do you mean the shot that Cheney followed with the sincere remark, "Thank you
for the kind words about my daughter"?
?????????????????
The only shot turns out to be Cheney's implied lie that Edwards has never been
in the Senate on the day each week that Cheny presides there, (Tuesday). To be
fair, he only says he "has never met Edwards" before, but the implication is
that
Edwards has never been in the Senate on Tuesdays. Two of the first three votes
I checked on Edward's voting record were on Tuesdays. 10-21-2003 and 5-7-2002.
I only checked three, and two of them were Tuesday.
More of the same crap from these clowns.
Cheney is such an accomplished liar that
he can malign and slander Edwards without "technically" telling a lie. He never
said that Edwards wasn't in the Senate. He never said that he hadn't seen
Edwards in the Senate. He only said he had never met Edwards before the debate,
claimed that Edwards' constituents called him "Senator Gone" and let the
sheeple draw their own conclusions.
Gary Warner
> >Edwards was really classy when he took a shot at Cheney about his
daughter.
> >
> >
>
> A "shot"?
>
> Do you mean the shot that Cheney followed with the sincere remark, "Thank
you
> for the kind words about my daughter"?
>
> ?????????????????
>
Yea, a shot. Sure, the actual words were not harsh. But as I watched I
certainly
*felt* this as a "shot."
It's usually uncouth for one candidate to bring his opponents
family into a discussion. There may be some circumstances where this would
be
appropriate, say if the Moderator asked a direct question about it. Even
then
the classy answer would be to say something like, "It's not really my place
to comment on that." ~ Just because Cheney recovered well / was graceful
by taking it as a compliement doesn't mean Edwards was right. ~~ In fact
it's similar to when the moderator asked Edwards the question of why/how
he (Edwards) was fit to be VP. When the time turned to Cheney for his 60
seconds "rebuttal" Cheney was hesitant to comment on Edwards fitness.
Let me put it in a slightly different way. Say the question was about
services
for mentally handicapped people. And say Cheney had a mentally handicapped
daughter. Edwards would be considered (I think) very calous to move the
discussion from the abstract to Cheney's child. These should not be
personal
issues but policical ones. (Note: I'm *not* trying to say being gay or
lesbian
is like being mentally handicapped. I'm only saying that bringing the other
guy's
family into the discussion is, in most circumstances, uncool.)
> The only shot turns out to be Cheney's implied lie that Edwards has never
been
> in the Senate on the day each week that Cheny presides there, (Tuesday).
To be
Fair enough. I do believe this was a misleading statement by Cheney.
Again, I feel compelled to note: I'm routing for Kerry/Edwards and think
they
will be much better for this country than Bush/Cheney. But I also think
Cheney
was much calmer, more direct, and more "professional" then Edwards tonight.
jps
eI...@ChangeThisPart.com says...
> Edwards was really classy when he took a shot at Cheney about his
> daughter.
Jeez Wilbur, were we watching the same debate? Edwards was very
deferential to Cheney on his choice to support his family over Bush
policy.
If there was a point made, I think it was a good one. Not recognizing
it certainly paints you as a blind partisan.
jps
Harry Krause
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:37:49 -0400, "Gary Warner" <jabad...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Edwards was really classy when he took a shot at Cheney about his
> daughter.
You mean, when Edwards complimented the Cheney family for supporting
each other as a family, and for sticking up for the rights of their gay
daughter instead of disowning her or not talking about it, or when
Cheney thanked Edwards for his kind words?
--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.
What, me worry?
Eisboch
> WaIIy wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:37:49 -0400, "Gary Warner" <jabad...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>Edwards was really classy when he took a shot at Cheney about his
>>daughter.
>
>
> You mean, when Edwards complimented the Cheney family for supporting
> each other as a family, and for sticking up for the rights of their gay
> daughter instead of disowning her or not talking about it, or when
> Cheney thanked Edwards for his kind words?
>
Was it really necessary for Edwards to even introduce the subject of
Cheney's family issues?
Slick cheap shot in my book.
Eisboch
Harry Krause
It was appropriate because the moderate brought up the subject of the
the GOP's main wedge issue this fall, trying to ban gay marriage.
Gould 0738
>Cheney's family issues?
>
>Slick cheap shot in my book.
>
>Eisboch
>
You may be right.
I hadn't considered the effect such a remark would have on people who consider
homosexuality a vile, deviant, "sin" rather than a biological anomaly.
A liberal hears, "So and so has a lesbian daughter," and to us it sounds like,
"The
Jones family has a kid who is left handed."
Conservatives hear the same remark and perhaps some of them conclude, "The
Jones family must have done a crappy job of raising their kids if one of them
turned out queer. They should have taken them to church more often. How sad to
think that nice young woman is condemned to burn in hell for all eternity."
If Edwards had a malicious intent when he commented on Cheney's daughter and
the support the Cheney family has extended to her, then the comments that it
was a "shot" have some legs.
If a conservative had made that comment, it is more likely that it would have
been malicious than when the same comment is made by a moderate or a liberal.
Goes to frame of reference.
Gould 0738
>but nice things about the daughter, and the Cheneys as parents.
>
>BB
>
Come to think of it, that's true!
The reference to Cheney's daughter was
contained in the text of the question asked by the moderator.
Will we see a retraction of the "cheap shot" charges by Wally and Eisboch?
Holding my breath here........(not)......
JimH
LOL! You are about as non partisan as Dennis Kucinich.
P.Fritz
"JimH" <m...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PvidnRc0Aus...@comcast.com...
Typical of a liebral.....they are ashamed of themselves.
>
>
basskisser
No, it wasn't a "cheap shot". It was meant to show the contradictions
between how Cheney actually feels, as opposed to what BushCo makes him
say.
jps
paulNOf...@voyager.net says...
> Typical of a liebral.....they are ashamed of themselves.
If you had a brain in your head, you might understand why Americans
should be ashamed of themselves. We hired the village idiot to run the
country.
jps
Harry Krause
There's the rub...he has no brain in his head. The twerp is barely
literate...he probably thinks Dubya speaks English "good."
--
"...vice president (Cheney), I'm surprised to hear him talk about
records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he
was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against
banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors. He voted
against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for
Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin
Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of
Nelson Mandela in South Africa. It's amazing to hear him criticize
either my record or John Kerry's."
- Senator John Edwards, 10/05/04
Harry Krause
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 06:18:03 -0400, Harry Krause
> <piedty...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>WaIIy wrote:
>>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 00:37:49 -0400, "Gary Warner" <jabad...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Edwards was really classy when he took a shot at Cheney about his
>>> daughter.
>>
>>You mean, when Edwards complimented the Cheney family for supporting
>>each other as a family, and for sticking up for the rights of their gay
>>daughter instead of disowning her or not talking about it, or when
>>Cheney thanked Edwards for his kind words?
>
What? Cheney lied? Cheney?
Gould 0738
>Edwards too a shot regarding Cheney's daughter and if you didn't
>see it, you may or may not be partisan, but you would be lacking
>in observational subtleties.
>
Edwards was the Caucasian male sitting to the right hand side of my TV screen.
The African American female, the moderator, was the person who introduced the
subject of Cheney's daughter- not Edwards.
>you may or may not be partisan, but you would be lacking
>in observational subtleties.
>
>
basskisser
third-grade-like name calling.
JimH
"basskisser" <atl_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c74f111.04100...@posting.google.com...
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
P.Fritz
Cripes, that asslicker is dumber than a tree stump
LMAO
>
>
Eisboch
Gould,
Nice of you to practice amateur human psychology, but sometimes you
think too much. My comment had nothing to do with being a liberal,
moderate or conservative. It had to do with my belief that in a
political debate, your opponent's family issues should be off limits.
Period.
If the moderator brought up the subject of Cheney's daughter and the
fact that she is gay - then she screwed up. I don't recall that, but it
may have been. I recall the moderator posing a question related to gay
marriages, but don't recall her specifically mentioning Cheney's
daughter. I could be wrong.
Eisboch
Charles
jps wrote:
> We hired the village idiot to run the country.
When did b'asskisser become president?
-- Charlie
Harry Krause
Dubya Dopey made "gayness" and "gay marriage" an issue in this campaign
and, to his credit, Grumpy Dick and Lynn Vader feel it shouldn't be. I
certainly can appreciate, though, that to save face, Grumpy Dick has to
support his boss, even if he is winking when he does it.
thunder
> If the moderator brought up the subject of Cheney's daughter and the
> fact that she is gay - then she screwed up. I don't recall that, but it
> may have been. I recall the moderator posing a question related to gay
> marriages, but don't recall her specifically mentioning Cheney's
> daughter.
> I could be wrong.
Not specifically, but...
IFILL: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President.
I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting:
"Freedom means freedom for everybody." You said it again recently when you
were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's
experience as a context for your remarks.
Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional
ban on same-sex unions?
jps
says...
There's more than one village in the country. Are you running this
year?
jps
eI...@ChangeThisPart.com says...
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 01:30:35 -0700, jps <tr...@thedump.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <4517m01ml0ininiv2...@4ax.com>,
> >eI...@ChangeThisPart.com says...
> >
> >
> >> Edwards was really classy when he took a shot at Cheney about his
> >> daughter.
> >
> >deferential to Cheney on his choice to support his family over Bush
> >policy.
>
> Remind me not to go to Florida if I have a cavity.
> Edwards too a shot regarding Cheney's daughter and if you didn't
> see it, you may or may not be partisan, but you would be lacking
> in observational subtleties.
Have a look at the transcript. Edwards kind comment (which Cheney
thanked him for) didn't materialize from thin air, IIRC it was in
response to a question about gay marriage.
Partisan foolery on your part.
That's okay. I'm feeling pretty generous right now since all the polls
are heading my way.
jps
basskisser
Are you trying to make a point, or just being stupid, as usual?
basskisser
basskisser
Hmm, perhaps you've, again, been mistaken about what was said? I'll
bet you think that in the above, that I've done what I'm saying isn't
called for? Pray tell, what name DID I call you?
Do you think it's an adult like act to call people petty little names?
I say third grade like, because my daughter, who's in fourth grade,
knows more than to do things like that.
JimH
That you are dumber than a tree stump? I agree.
P.Fritz
Stumpyjust doesn't get it. <snicker>
basskisser
Hehehe!!! Again, YOU don't get it!!! My god, you are dumb! You see, I
said something about your name calling being like a little kid, and it
is. Your answer?? ANOTHER name calling session. Then, I say thanks for
making my point. Your reply? YET ANOTHER example!!!!!!! You are making
my point very clear! Only you and JimH don't understand it!
JimH
Hey, I am John Smith to you....how soon we forget. LOL
P.Fritz
That is just asslicker attempt not to be 'cow downed' LMAO
He still doesn't get it.
>
>
John Gaquin
John Gaquin
"basskisser" <atl_...@yahoo.com> wrote on 10/7
> Do you think it's an adult like act to call people petty little names? I
say third > grade like, because my daughter, who's in fourth grade,
> knows more than to do things like that.
[basskisser, 10/8, same thread] My god, you are dumb!
[basskisser, 10/7, same thread] Are you trying to make a point, or just
being stupid, as usual?
[basskisser, 10/7] "...you are nothing but a piece of shit trying to act
like
special... in my youth, we made punching bags out of arrogant little
assholes like you..."
[basskisser, 10/8] God, you are stupid... You are just too stupid to find
it, I quess.
"quess" ??
I could go on, and on, and on. Its just too easy.
LOL
Jon Smithe
up his bags and leave, then were are we going to get our daily laugh.
"John Gaquin" <john....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i8SdnQ66Dq8...@comcast.com...
basskisser
>
> > Do you think it's an adult like act to call people petty little names? I
> say third > grade like, because my daughter, who's in fourth grade,
> > knows more than to do things like that.
>
> [basskisser, 10/8, same thread] My god, you are dumb!
>
> [basskisser, 10/7, same thread] Are you trying to make a point, or just
> being stupid, as usual?
>
> [basskisser, 10/7] "...you are nothing but a piece of shit trying to act
> like
> assholes like you..."
>
> [basskisser, 10/8] God, you are stupid... You are just too stupid to find
> it, I quess.
>
> "quess" ??
>
> I could go on, and on, and on. Its just too easy.
>
> LOL
Nice. You did exactly as I suspected, and that is NOT ANSWER THE
QUESTION. Care to try again?
basskisser
> >
> > "basskisser" <atl_man2@<a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=yahoo%20com" onmouseover="window.status='yahoo.com'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">yahoo.com</a>> wrote in message