|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 9:12:49 GMT -5
Post by chrisfan on Oct 6, 2004 9:12:49 GMT -5
I'm a little pissed at Cheney for one thing though ... I can't get onto Factcheck.org this morning because he gave them such a good commercial last night.
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 9:16:25 GMT -5
Post by Galactus on Oct 6, 2004 9:16:25 GMT -5
DED, Cheney certainly made some factual blunders, so I can understand why you'd bring them up. But why ignore that Edwards did the same thng? As one example, he insisted more than once that hte cost in Iraq is $2 billion, and insisted that Cheney was lying when he said it was $1.2 billion. But news organizations today are backing up the $1.2 billion. Yes, BOTH made factual mistakes. If you add up what's earmarked for Iraq in the next year it's 200 billion...whatever. Yeah they both had few fuzzy facts... |
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 9:17:24 GMT -5
Post by Ampage on Oct 6, 2004 9:17:24 GMT -5
Well, that’s a good thing, isn’t it? Maybe some people will learn the truth, if they can handle the truth.  |
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 9:23:14 GMT -5
Post by Galactus on Oct 6, 2004 9:23:14 GMT -5
 Bush Arrives At Debate Wearing Flight Suit |
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 9:27:39 GMT -5
Post by strat-0 on Oct 6, 2004 9:27:39 GMT -5
I'd had a few beers by the time the debate was over, and after reflection and hearing some of the review and commentary, I have to back away from "creamed" a bit (unlike the Bush/Kerry debate).
Weirdly, the reporting I've seen thus far from a few sources has been playing clips and responses from both guys that don't match up or reflect the main points made very well. I don't know what's up with that, but I suppose there were fewer good "sound bites" to pluck out of the content. I thought Edwards did a good job in clarifying what was meant by Kerry's "global test" comment, but that doesn't boil down to a sound bite either, so you'll never hear that again. Also, Edwards scored a point in plainly conveying the disingenious way many in which the Administration (and Bush) continue to try to tie 9/11 and bin Laden into the Iraq War. How may times did Cheney say "terror"? I'd like to know that. Maybe I can find a transcript and do a word search. Like all "terror" is one in the same and the way to stop it was to invade Iraq... Oh, yeah, there's terrorism there NOW...
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 9:46:47 GMT -5
Post by chrisfan on Oct 6, 2004 9:46:47 GMT -5
I'd had a few beers by the time the debate was over, and after reflection and hearing some of the review and commentary, I have to back away from "creamed" a bit (unlike the Bush/Kerry debate). Weirdly, the reporting I've seen thus far from a few sources has been playing clips and responses from both guys that don't match up or reflect the main points made very well. I don't know what's up with that, but I suppose there were fewer good "sound bites" to pluck out of the content. I thought Edwards did a good job in clarifying what was meant by Kerry's "global test" comment, but that doesn't boil down to a sound bite either, so you'll never hear that again. Also, Edwards scored a point in plainly conveying the disingenious way many in which the Administration (and Bush) continue to try to tie 9/11 and bin Laden into the Iraq War. How may times did Cheney say "terror"? I'd like to know that. Maybe I can find a transcript and do a word search. Like all "terror" is one in the same and the way to stop it was to invade Iraq... Oh, yeah, there's terrorism there NOW... There was terrorism, and support of terrorism there before. This one is a mystery to me -- people who oppose the war keep on saying "Iraq did not invade us on 9/11". That's absolutely right. I even watch Fox News, and I can tell you that. But I can ALSO tell you that the Taliban did not attack us on 9/11 either. Yet, so many of the people who use the "Iraq didn't attack us" argument don't seem to mention that. The objective in both Iraq and Afghanistan was not to overthrow terrorists. It was to overthrow two governments who supported terrorists. The support of terrorists by both governments is really unquestionable. The Debra Burlingame piece from the Wall Street Journal did a great job of explaining that, IMO. But it's very easy to understand why there is so much of what appears to be double-speak in the issue of the war on terror. There are a lot of aspects of the discussion that can easily be mistaken for something else. For example, when you talk about terrorists, are you just talking about al Qaeda? Some are, some aren't. When you talk about being involved in 9/11, are you talking about just the people who carried out the attack, or are you talking about the people who supported them? When you talk about support, are you talking about monetary, structural, or both? I can understand why it is such a devisive issue ... it's a very complex one that does not lend itself to soundbite discussions. Hell, it really doesn't even lend itself to hour-long discussion shows. |
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 10:14:20 GMT -5
Post by Dr. Drum on Oct 6, 2004 10:14:20 GMT -5
Um, the objective in Afghanistan was the destruction of Al Qaeda. Its leadership, including Osama bin Laden, were allowed by the Taliban to use the country as a base of operations. The Taliban defied an ultimatum by George Bush to hand over all the leadership of al Qaeda to the U.S. and close down their training camps.
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 10:15:05 GMT -5
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Oct 6, 2004 10:15:05 GMT -5
There's Al Qaeda cells hidden in London. So if you could warn me before the USA invades England in response to 9/11 I'd be most appreciative. I need time to pack my Smiths albums somewhere safe, and I'd rather not be blown up whilst walking down a street by a missile fired from a jet fighter, while the pilot excitedly shouts "Oh duuuude!"
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 10:16:58 GMT -5
Post by chrisfan on Oct 6, 2004 10:16:58 GMT -5
There's Al Qaeda cells hidden in London. So if you could warn me before the USA invades England in response to 9/11 I'd be most appreciative. I need time to pack my Smiths albums somewhere safe, and I'd rather not be blown up whilst walking down a street by a missile fired from a jet fighter, while the pilot excitedly shouts "Oh duuuude!" With acknowledgement of good humor JLLM, you and I both are smart enough to understand the difference between a country where al Qaeda is operating uninvited, and a country where al Qaeda is operating with the full knowledge and support of the government. |
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 10:26:49 GMT -5
Post by pissin2 on Oct 6, 2004 10:26:49 GMT -5
Haven't been around in a while. After seeing the presidential debate.......wow. If you still can't see what a blundering idiot Bush is, then go play in traffic or something.
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 10:29:04 GMT -5
Post by Ampage on Oct 6, 2004 10:29:04 GMT -5
Um, good one.
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 10:32:10 GMT -5
Post by chrisfan on Oct 6, 2004 10:32:10 GMT -5
Ampster pants, there's probably more traffic in Cleveland than there is in Toledo. Why don't you come on over and we can play in traffic together?
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 10:32:18 GMT -5
Post by pissin2 on Oct 6, 2004 10:32:18 GMT -5
Um thanks. I'm serious though. I at least have some respect for Cheney, because at least if he's lying he's a good liar. Actually that sucks too. But he has facts in front of him and is well spoken. Bush doesn't have a god damn clue what the hell is going on. He basically said the same thing every time he spoke. A whole bunch of nothing.
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 10:36:14 GMT -5
Post by Ampage on Oct 6, 2004 10:36:14 GMT -5
Well that’s your opinion, maybe you think it’s the same thing over and over because it sounds familiar, like he has said it before, because he stand by his convictions. Where as with Kerry, its always something new and fresh and different coming from his piehole because he changes his pea brain every two and two.
|
|
|
|
CE 7
Oct 6, 2004 10:38:28 GMT -5
Post by chrisfan on Oct 6, 2004 10:38:28 GMT -5
Two and two? I had no idea Chuck Woolery lived in Toledo. No wonder the Love Connection contestants were always so weird.
|
|
