Cheney OFFICIALLY won the VP debate.

[BigBadBrian]

Edwards is a slick trial lawyer, I'll give him that, but his inexperience shows in the end. I particularly liked the part where Dick busted his ass on his inattendance in the Senate. :D

[BigBadBrian]

I'll give Edwards a slight edge in the public policy area, though. The Bush Administration needs to tweak the drug benefit to all needy Americans in the next four years. :gulp:

[Lqskdiver]

I thought drugs were accessible to all folx? That certainly is case on these with some the loons who hang out here.


Yeah, edwards was slick...all he had to do was picture Cheney as some big CEO of a major insurance company he wants to swindle and poof! He's back in business with Ally McBeal. Of course, Cheney was a CEO...

Noticed that Cheney did not thank him in the end for attending. :D

[BigBadBrian]

Kerry: Soft on National Defense

[Warham]

Kerry ain't just soft, he's limp.

[ODShowtime]

false

[ELVIS]

Yes, kerry is false...

[Warham]

How is it false?

Did Kerry vote for that 87 billion for the troops? He said it would be IRRESPONSIBLE to vote against it.

What about those Reagan-era defense bills, the ones that helped us win the Cold War?

Why didn't Kerry vote for Desert Storm in '91?

I want some answers.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
How is it false?

Did Kerry vote for that 87 billion for the troops? He said it would be IRRESPONSIBLE to vote against it.

I want some answers.

Keep on track, we're talking about Edwards. haha.



edit: well the first three posts were until you guys exercised republican mind tricks and kinda... flip-flopped the thread...

[Warham]

I said Kerry was limp, and you said false.

Back it up.

[ODShowtime]

I was mostly falsing the title. sorry Warham. Damn I feel bad now not debating you. You're all fired up. I need to sleep.

[Warham]

It's funny how the libs rip the Bush administration for using Halliburton in Iraq.

Isn't that the company that Clinton used in Bosnia? Where was the outrage then?

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by Warham
I said Kerry was limp, and you said false.

Back it up.
:D

[Warham]

I'm tired too, pal. Come on! :D

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by Warham
It's funny how the libs rip the Bush administration for using Halliburton in Iraq.

Isn't that the company that Clinton used in Bosnia? Where was the outrage then?

The ethnic cleansing lack of outrage took precedence?
:D

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
It's funny how the libs rip the Bush administration for using Halliburton in Iraq.

Isn't that the company that Clinton used in Bosnia? Where was the outrage then?

none from me because:

1. Clinton didn't help pull the intelligence up and lie to the people to get the Bosnian war started.

2 Clinton didn't do that because he had no material financial interest in Halliburton or other war profiteers; unlike Dick Cheney. Sure, nothing on paper. Except a couple hundred thousand a year in deferred compensation.

3. 'cause I didn't give a fuck back then so quit hitting me with Clinton bullshit! :)

[Warham]

What about that Kerry record I just posted?

It's obscene he voted against the Gulf War.

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
[B]
2 Clinton didn't do that because he had no material financial interest in Halliburton or other war profiteers; unlike Dick Cheney. Sure, nothing on paper. Except a couple hundred thousand a year in deferred compensation.


:lol:

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
How is it false?

Did Kerry vote for that 87 billion for the troops? He said it would be IRRESPONSIBLE to vote against it.

I want some answers.


When GW got that 87 billion passed I was PISSED. Of course Kerry voted against it or didn't or what-the-fuck ever.

You know who's fault it was that we even needed to authorize such outrageous spending? bush&friends incorporated, the whole fucking cabal.

No... not because they lied and tricked us into a war of agression and profiteering, no.

It's because the kiss-ass lying sack of shit GW low-balled the initial bill for the Iraq war. Because he know he could come back and force a decisive vote for more $ later, to help flush out his enemines. Rove the eveil genius indeed.

Maybe if GW would have been frank with America about the cost of the war and who was paying the bill, in blood and treasure, we would have thought twice.

But fuck it, it was a great chance to use some cool new bombs on some rag-heads! And THEY attacked us. The evil fallujans, najafians, and basrites.

[ODShowtime]

before you get to jack me, I want to know what the fuck paralleliums are. that shit cracks me up.

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
none from me because:

1. Clinton didn't help pull the intelligence up and lie to the people to get the Bosnian war started.

2 Clinton didn't do that because he had no material financial interest in Halliburton or other war profiteers; unlike Dick Cheney. Sure, nothing on paper. Except a couple hundred thousand a year in deferred compensation.

3. 'cause I didn't give a fuck back then so quit hitting me with Clinton bullshit! :)

Where are the 10k reports that state that or the shareholders distribution analysis. Those are all public records that you can obtain through the E.D.G.A.R. database. Perhaps you can point them out and enlighten me...that's if you aren't too tired.

[Pink Spider]

I missed this debate.

Lucky me. :)

So, Darth Cheney won you say?

[Warham]

That vote was to support our troops over there.

Kerry has NO right to accuse Bush of not giving the troops the armor, vehicles, spare parts, and weapons to complete their mission, when he didn't even vote for the bill!

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Where are the 10k reports that state that or the shareholders distribution analysis. Those are all public records that you can obtain through the E.D.G.A.R. database. Perhaps you can point them out and enlighten me...that's if you aren't too tired.

I got your ass too.

Considering DICK CHENEY was the CEO of Halliburton during a time period that is now under investigation for accounting fraud due to a class-action lawsuit by investors, I wouldn't believe a figure in any reports coming from these assholes.

What? You don't got shit to say.

And with that, I bid you all goodnight.

[Dr. Love]

I dunno. Edwards seemed inexperienced at times, making expressions or saying things that were not that impressive to me.

But it seemed to me that at times Cheney seemed uninterested in what was going on.

The part that annoyed me/I found funny was when they were asked questions, but instead went back to argue about previous questions.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
That vote was to support our troops over there.

Kerry has NO right to accuse Bush of not giving the troops the armor, vehicles, spare parts, and weapons to complete their mission, when he didn't even vote for the bill!

You know I'm right.


Bush put those troops into that horrible guerilla combat zone and either he knew it was coming and still sent them with inadequate armor, or he was too fucking stupid to foresee it. I did forsee it and I am a fucking 25 year old normal dude.


away put your weapons. harm you I will not. the force is with you, always

[Warham]

I think Cheney was focused on demolishing Edwards. It almost looked like a cat ready to pounce on a mouse.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
You know I'm right.


Bush put those troops into that horrible guerilla combat zone and either he knew it was coming and still sent them with inadequate armor, or he was too fucking stupid to foresee it. I did forsee it and I am a fucking 25 year old normal dude.


away put your weapons. harm you I will not. the force is with you, always

I know Kerry is wrong.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
I think Cheney was focused on demolishing Edwards. It almost looked like a cat ready to pounce on a mouse.

cheney ALWAYS looks like that. I'm not trying to be an asshole here. He always looks evil like that!

[Warham]

Edwards looked like he wanted to slide into a crack in the floor when he was trying to defend Kerry's comment that our actions should 'pass the global test.'

When asked about the 'global test', Edwards gave this answer:

"Did I forget to mention that Vice President Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton?"

[Lqskdiver]

"cheney ALWAYS looks like that. I'm not trying to be an asshole here. He always looks evil like that!"


You don't have to try that hard. You just are an asshole.

What you don't have shit to say!!

You say you wouldn't believe any figures, but you can go on heresay, just because it suits you. Interesting...but I'm sticking to facts, and not the ones that come from SEEBS news.

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
You know I'm right.


Bush put those troops into that horrible guerilla combat zone and either he knew it was coming and still sent them with inadequate armor, or he was too fucking stupid to foresee it. I did forsee it and I am a fucking 25 year old normal dude.


away put your weapons. harm you I will not. the force is with you, always

Typical limp wristed response. "Ooh, those big thweaty men and all their armor ang big guns!"

Listen, miss, these are your freedom fighters and protectors of the country you live. You don't demean them with your know it all attitude and armchair politics. You want to a job done but not provide the proper equipment due to rhetorics and politics.

Fuck your limp wristed, assholes!

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
3. 'cause I didn't give a fuck back then so quit hitting me with Clinton bullshit! :)

I'm sorry, but history and world affairs isn't a pick and choose time period to care and then ignore everything that happened before.

I've read where you said that you didn't care about things back in that time period so you don't pay attention or care to discuss it, but I'm telling you that that makes you look really ignorant. You should at least care a little to familiarize yourself.

[Matt White]

From AOL:Who won the debate?
John Edwards 51%
Dick Cheney 49%
Did it change the presidential candidate you support?
No 71%
Yes, I now support Kerry 17%
Yes, I now support Bush 12%
Total Votes: 236,011
Note on Poll Results

DAVE OR THE GRAVE BABY!!!

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
before you get to jack me, I want to know what the fuck paralleliums are. that shit cracks me up.

Jack you? I hope you're referring to some urban drive-through slang or something....I sincerely hope that's the case. While not some sort of new-jack criminal element, I would much prefer that reference over some veiled, sophmoric hand-job shit.

As far the parallelium question? It's not rocket science. "Math" is worthy of little respect by the inherent nature of the flawed, often unscrupulous nature of the forward thinking early champions of the science.

"Parallelium" is but one aspect of the true, primalistic genious of human nature. In short, "the grease on the wheels".

Example:
Spell the word "dictates"and use it in a sentence.

D-I-C-T-A-T-E-S:

I shure hope you like the way my dictates, they shut the water off this morning.

[FORD]

Uncle Dick wasn't as helpless as his puppet Georgie Jr, but all he did was repeat the same old BCE PNAC lies and spin, trying to connect Iraq to 9-11,etc.

At least they won't be able to hang the goofy facial expressions on him like they did Junior. He only had one, the patented Cyborg Dick Angry Sneer........
http://www.evote.com/evotepix/events/GOPConvention2000/dick_cheney4_rnc_day3.jpg

He blew ANY case he had though with his closing argument however, which was essentially a repeat of his statement of a few weeks ago, "Vote for us or YOU WILL DIE!!"

[Matt White]

UPDATE:
Who won the debate?
John Edwards 52%
Dick Cheney 48%
Did it change the presidential candidate you support?
No 70%
Yes, I now support Kerry 17%
Yes, I now support Bush 13%
Total Votes: 337,149
Note on Poll Results

DAVE OR THE GRAVE BABY!!!

[LoungeMachine]

Uncle Dick OFFICIALLY won?

Who certified the results?

Kathryn Harris?

Fuck your official crap.

Idiot

Officially?

Buy a dictionary.

[Warham]

I don't know which debate you were watching FORD, but Cheney didn't 'keep trying' to connect 9-11 to Iraq. He actually at one point said he had never publicly commented that Iraq and 9-11 had any connection. He DID say Saddam had connections with terrorists, such as paying $25,000 to the families of car bombers.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Typical limp wristed response. "Ooh, those big thweaty men and all their armor ang big guns!"

Listen, miss, these are your freedom fighters and protectors of the country you live. You don't demean them with your know it all attitude and armchair politics. You want to a job done but not provide the proper equipment due to rhetorics and politics.

Fuck your limp wristed, assholes!

How did I demean the troops with my comments? It's not the soldier's fault they were deployed foolishly. You're falling back on stock answers.

Questioning the strategy of our country because you know it's wrong is a lot more manly than just blindly following along and parroting bullshit you heard on TV.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
I'm sorry, but history and world affairs isn't a pick and choose time period to care and then ignore everything that happened before.

I've read where you said that you didn't care about things back in that time period so you don't pay attention or care to discuss it, but I'm telling you that that makes you look really ignorant. You should at least care a little to familiarize yourself.

Well, ignorance is in the eye of the beholder. Let me take the time to spell it out. I don't like it when I'm busting on the CURRENT administation, and when I back some people into a corner their knee-jerk reaction is to fire back about Clinton. It's a defense strategy by people who have nothing else to say. I was not a Clinton supporter during his tenure, so I don't really like to have to defend his policies.

With that said, I read about politics and history every chance I get, but that time period is mared in bullshit. It's nothing but monica this monica that thanks to the repubs. It's a boring period of history to me. Maybe because I lived through it and it was nice.

[Warham]

No, it's nothing but Monica this, Monica that because Slick Willy was getting his knob gobbed under his desk.

The Republicans had nothing to do with his Oval Office intern fetishes.

[Warham]

Or do you believe as FORD does that Monica's face was planted in Clinton's lap by the BCE? :rolleyes:

[ELVIS]

I don't know of any instances where you have backed anyone into a corner, ODS...

You can be pretty ignorant...

Especially with your "You know I'm right" comment, which I have seen at least three times...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Or do you believe as FORD does that Monica's face was planted in Clinton's lap by the BCE? :rolleyes:

I have never said such a thing.

[Warham]

Yes you did, FORD.

Do I have to threaten to do a search?

:D

[Sgt Schultz]

No contest – Cheney bitch slapped Edwards into a corner where he stayed, in a piss-soaked fetal position helplessly shielding his head with his flailing arms and hands whilst Cheney repeatedly bludgeoned him into quivering submission.

Edwards, a smart assed little dweeb kept repeating (3 times I counted) that Bush /Cheney claimed a 9/11 – Iraq link - they never have and Cheney said so. Edwards showed us all who he really is – a slick southern trial lawyer who is used to fooling retiree jurors weened on trash talk show journalism, with hankies at the ready, into bilking money out of companies to line his own pockets. That shit isn’t going to fly as the man one step away from being Commander in Chief. Edwards had full command of his inane talking points yet he did not have the wherewithal to alter course in any way when his stupid claims were refuted. When he was hit with the facts of his own non-existent Senate record and he and Kerry's total disregard for our biggest ally in the middle east - IRAq - his childish little smirks and sneers betrayed that he’s about as deep as a kiddie pool. Edwards is a complete joke.

Cheney showed himself for what he is, a serious ADULT who has the facts at his command.

[Warham]

I won't just threaten. I'll post it anyway!


posted: 09-01-2004 at 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Warham:

Clinton looked bad without the help of the Bush family.

I supposed the Bush family, under this scenario, drove Monica to the White House every morning?"

FORD Response: No, Monica was a Mossad plant. She knew exactly what her mission was before she went to DC and even told her friends on the West Coast that she was "taking her Presidential knee pads to Washington"

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
I won't just threaten. I'll post it anyway!


posted: 09-01-2004 at 10:16 AM

Originally posted by Warham:

Clinton looked bad without the help of the Bush family.

I supposed the Bush family, under this scenario, drove Monica to the White House every morning?"

FORD Response: No, Monica was a Mossad plant. She knew exactly what her mission was before she went to DC and even told her friends on the West Coast that she was "taking her Presidential knee pads to Washington"

Right.... so where did I mention the BCE?

[ELVIS]

LMAO!


:elvis:

[Warham]

Later in the thread you mentioned that Mossad and the BCE are separate entities, BUT you also insist that the BCE and Mossad are working hand in hand.

What better way for Bush to get back at Clinton than to have his buddies send in a chunky agent to get Slick Willy in trouble, eh? That way it's not directly tied to the BCE, and Bush can wash his hands of the matter.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
Right.... so where did I mention the BCE?


Mossad isn't funded by your make-believe BCE ??

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Mossad isn't funded by your make-believe BCE ??

That's a contradiction in and of itself, because if the BCE weren't real, they couldn't fund anyone.

Truthfully though, Mossad is the Israeli equivalent of the CIA, and they do often work together. Now of course the CIA is a spin off of the BCE from the beginning, so there is a link, though it's indirect.

[Warham]

The BCE can't fund anyone, but they can make huge deposits from Halliburton into their Swiss bank account? What's the problem, won't the bank allow withdrawals?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by ELVIS
I don't know of any instances where you have backed anyone into a corner, ODS...

You can be pretty ignorant...

Especially with your "You know I'm right" comment, which I have seen at least three times...

"You know I'm right"

I was pushing the issue with Warham because I thought he might crack.

People come off differently on message boards than they do in real life. Sometimes you go over the top. You have to sound confident. Why am defending myself? Fuck that, this is the DLR Army.

[Warham]

You thought I would crack?

You must be new around here, huh?

:D

[alsip]

"I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."
-Vice President Cheney

Inarguably a decisive win for Cheney - a virtuoso and stalwart American with a remarkable skill for debate. Edwards' attempts to incite Cheney, and put him on the defensive (i.e. his Halliburton lies and most inappropriately bringing up Cheney's gay daughter), indeed backfired. Don Imus, a self-proclaimed Dem, said it best this morning: "Although light on his feet, Edwards looked like a light-weight fighting a heavy weight, who hit him with blow after blow."

On the heels of last Thursday, this was much needed, and has re-energized the GOP, providing some much needed momentum for Bush at a most important time. Thanks Dick!!!

[ELVIS]

Hahahaha...

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
You thought I would crack?

You must be new around here, huh?

:D

I was tired and it looked to me like you were falling back on irrational, stock answers and getting flustered. I am starting to grasp that no one around here is changing their mind about anything. It was fun for awhile to try though. At least most of you regulars have convictions. The people around me in real life don't give a shit about anything.

[Warham]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I was tired and it looked to me like you were falling back on irrational, stock answers and getting flustered. I am starting to grasp that no one around here is changing their mind about anything. It was fun for awhile to try though. At least most of you regulars have convictions. The people around me in real life don't give a shit about anything.

Well, I'll never vote for a Democrat just because of my core convictions, but it's good to have a fun, informative debate.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, I'll never vote for a Democrat just because of my core convictions, but it's good to have a fun, informative debate.


that's what I'm here for.


Believe me, I am extremely conflicted right now. I favor ALOT of republican core beliefs. And I do not like being in the same corner as some of the main democratic-supporting groups. But my core convictions tell me these people are pulling a fast one. Simple as that.

I'm not spouting this stuff because I secretly support welfare or raising the minimum wage, I am just really pissed because I know how terrible the Bush Administration has been for America. They handled many things the wrong way. Sure they handled stuff, but in the wrong way.

[FORD]

Cheney's Avalanche of Lies
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Wednesday 06 October 2004

"The vice president, 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

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/uploads/cheney-edwards.jpg
Cheney and Edwards at the National Prayer Breakfast, 02/01/01

Clearly, Dick Cheney is no George W. Bush.

On Thursday night in Florida, Bush exposed himself as unprepared, easily ruffled, angry, excitable and muddled. As one wag put it, he came to a 90 minute debate with 10 minutes of material. On Tuesday night in Ohio, Cheney showed the American people who is really running things at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He was controlled, calm, every inch the CEO in charge.

Cheney was also every inch the snarling, hunch-shouldered golem that has made him one of the least popular politicians in recent memory. He seldom looked up at moderator Gwen Ifill, or at the cameras facing him, choosing instead to speak into his own chest for the entire night. Cheney appeared, overall, to cut quite the frightening figure, the dark night to Edwards' optimistic day.

The other problem for Cheney, of course, was the way he lied with nearly every word that passed his curled lips. It was a virtuoso performance of prevarication, obfuscation and outright balderdash. On Thursday night, George W. Bush played the part of a man who couldn't possibly defend his record. On Tuesday night, Cheney acted as though that record did not exist.

Cheney was behind the eight-ball before he even entered the hall, tasked to defend his administration's rationale for invading and occupying Iraq. Unfortunately for him, journalists record statements made by important people. In 1992, then-Defense Secretary Cheney spoke to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. Recall that the United States was flush from the trouncing of Iraq in the first Gulf War. Cheney was asked why coalition forces didn't roll tanks on Baghdad and depose Saddam Hussein. Cheney's response, given 14 years ago, could well describe the mess we currently find ourselves in.

"I would guess if we had gone in there," said Cheney in 1992, "I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war."

For the record, 1,064 American soldiers have died in this second round of war in Iraq. An additional 138 soldiers from the 'coalition' Bush and Cheney assembled have also died, bringing the total to 1,202. Edwards made the point several times that the United States was bearing "90% of the coalition causalities" in Iraq, and that the American people are bearing "90% of the costs of the effort in Iraq." Cheney tried to say this wasn't true, but the body count numbers don't lie, and never mind the burden being carried by the Iraqi people, more than 20,000 of whom have perished since the invasion began.

"And the question in my mind," continued Cheney in 1992, "is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

Cheney's answer to this glaring contradiction, of course, is "September 11," i.e. the terrorist attacks changed everything. It doesn't change the facts of a disastrous occupation, or the overwhelming financial burden being placed on American taxpayers because of Bush administration failures, and it certainly doesn't explain 1,064 folded American flags handed to American families who thought their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers and fathers were going to Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction and protect the United States.

Page 01 of the Washington Post for Wednesday 06 October carries an article titled 'Report Discounts Iraq Arms Threat,' which reads in paragraph one: "The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said yesterday."

Yes, the lies were thick before Cheney took his seat at the desk on Tuesday night. They got thicker. Edwards, in a theme repeated throughout the night, stated that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, and that the Bush administration had erred grievously by diverting attention from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and into Iraq. Several times, Edwards accused Cheney of rhetorically combining Iraq and 9/11.

"I have not," replied Cheney, "suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

Hm.

"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Cheney, 12/2/02

"His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." - Cheney, 1/30/03

"I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." - Cheney, 1/22/04

"There's been enormous confusion over the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection, Gloria. First of all, on the question of - of whether or not there was any kind of a relationship, there was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming. It goes back to the early '90s...There's clearly been a relationship." - Cheney, 6/17/04

One could argue, perhaps, the definition of "is" on this matter. Cheney did not state specifically in any of the above quotes that Iraq was involved with 9/11. But the repeated claim that Iraq was connected to al Qaeda, a claim that has been shot to pieces dozens of times over, establishes enough of an Iraq-9/11 connection to satisfy a man who appears to believe that a frightened populace is a happy populace.

George W. Bush doesn't even believe Cheney on this point. An article by Reuters from September 18, 2003, had Bush telling reporters, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11." Bush was forced into this scramble because his Vice President had, again, made this discredited connection between Iraq and 9/11 on 'Meet the Press' the previous Sunday by claiming, "more and more" evidence was being found to justify the connection. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.

Cheney's unruffled, monotone demeanor became demonstrably agitated only a few times on Tuesday, but those times were telling. They came when John Edwards mentioned Halliburton. Edwards accused Halliburton, essentially, of war profiteering, and went so far as to describe how the company, while run by Cheney, was trading with nations now considered to be enemies of America.

"While he was CEO of Halliburton," said Edwards, "they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay. They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States. They're now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials during that period of time. Not only that, they've gotten a $7.5 billion no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way it's normally done, because they're under investigation, they've continued to get their money."

Cheney was allotted 30 seconds to reply to this explosive charge. His response: "The reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false."

Edwards' reply to this in-depth rejoinder: "These are the facts. The facts are the vice president's company that he was CEO of, that did business with sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false financial information, it's under investigation for bribing foreign officials. The same company that got a $7.5 billion no-bid contract, the rule is that part of their money is supposed to be withheld when they're under investigation, as they are now, for having overcharged the American taxpayer, but they're getting every dime of their money."

A few more facts: According to the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle, the New York Times, the Petroleum Economist and scores of other reporters and media outlets, Halliburton in the time of Dick Cheney dealt with both Iraq, Iran and Libya through a variety of subsidiaries and in defiance of scores of international sanctions. Cheney did not like the sanctions against these countries, and went out of his way to make sure Halliburton could get around them and turn a tidy profit.

On June 13, 2000, one month before joining the Republican presidential ticket, the Los Angeles Times reported Cheney's claim that, "We're kept out of (Iran) primarily by our own government, which has made a decision that U.S. firms should not be allowed to invest significantly in Iran, and I think that's a mistake." When speaking to the Cato Institute on June 23, 1998, Cheney stated, "Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the (Caspian Sea) area and the United States has declared unilateral economic sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited from dealing with Iran and find themselves cut out of the action."

Cut out of the action?

It went on like this for 90 minutes, and got quite silly at one point. Cheney tried to paint Edwards as an absentee Senator by claiming he'd not met Edwards until that night. CNN and the other networks, a couple of hours later, began showing video of the two of them sitting together for several hours during the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2001. It seems a silly thing to lie about, what with all the chaos and dead people we're all dealing with, but the media appeared happy to seize upon it. So it goes.

Cheney looked for all the world as if the whole thing bored him. One can hardly blame him. When your entire professional and political career is a tapestry of untruths, telling them again for the umpteenth time could indeed be quite dull.

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.'

link (http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100704Z.shtml)

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I am just really pissed because I know how terrible the Bush Administration has been for America.


I dunno man...

At least in my part of the world (Louisiana, the third world country of the United States) I see jobs, better school attendance, new homes everywhere you look with multiple SUV's and boats in the driveways, people getting off drugs and alcohol and climbing the ladder of personal success...

Most of these things are not the governments doing, as they shouldn't be, but I just don't see how George Bush and his administration has been so terrable for America...

[Warham]

Hey FORD, got any cut and pastes about the lies that Edwards spewed last night, like the fraudulent numbers he gave?

[Sgt Schultz]

William Rivers Pitt is a partisan idiot hack. Cheney exposed Edwards for what he is.........nothing.

[Warham]

Halliburton Hot Air
Shareholders blow a hole in the Kerry-Edwards “big oil” rhetoric.

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_bowyer_10-6-04.gif

“To save for Halliburton the spoils of the war, they actually issued a memorandum from the Defense Department saying, ‘If you weren’t with us in the war, don’t bother applying for any construction.’” — John Kerry, first presidential debate, September 30, 2004

“On the $87 billion, it was clear at the time of that vote that they had no plan to win the peace. We’re seeing the consequences of that everyday on the ground right now. We stood up and said: For our troops, we must have a plan to win the peace. We also thought it was wrong to have a $20 billion fund out of which $7.5 billion was going to go to a no-bid contract for Halliburton, the vice president’s former company.” — John Edwards, vice presidential debate, October 5, 2004


Behind all of the Kerry-Edwards rhetoric about the Halliburton Corp. is an unstated and inaccurate presupposition: If Vice President Dick Cheney intervened on Halliburton’s behalf in the war in Iraq, which he did not, and if the company obtained from the government lucrative no-bid contracts, which it did not, and if the vice president retained any financial interest in Halliburton, which he did not, that still leaves the question of whether the Bush-Cheney administration has actually been beneficial to Halliburton’s owners. It has not.

The Bush-Cheney administration simply hasn’t helped Halliburton. Who says so? Halliburton’s shareholders.

The evidence directly contradicts the theory that Bush and Cheney are the “big-oil ticket” and that what’s good for big oil is good for Halliburton. This theory is based on an old canard which states that wars are not entered into for idealistic purposes or even in the interest of national security, but rather in the interest of war profiteers (literally war-mongers) who get rich on the blood of others and whose sons never … blah, blah, blah. You find this in the ancient Greek satirists who blame the Peloponnesian War on arms merchants. You find it when virtually every war of the modern age is laid at the feet of “Jewish bankers” who loan to both sides. This time, big oil’s to blame.

Democratic party sugar daddy George Soros says his favorite philosopher is Karl Popper. Just for fun, let’s use Popper’s ideas to test the big-oil/Halliburton/war-profiteer theory. According to Popper, theories should be value based on their ability to accurately predict events. If your theory ends up predicting events which do not come to pass, then your theory should be discarded.

So, if you bought the John Edwards view of the world, then three and a half years ago when Bush won the election, wouldn’t you have also bought Halliburton stock? If you did, you got hurt. Since Bush’s inauguration, Halliburton’s shares have fallen 11 percent. To put things in perspective, other oil-related industries have risen roughly 36 percent in this time.

In other words, not only has the Bush-Cheney administration failed to make the owners of Halliburton richer, it has instead made them poorer. And they are significantly worse off than the owners of other oil-related companies who are doing well.

According to the shareholders — the people most in-the-know — the data could not be clearer: The Bush-Cheney administration has been bad for Halliburton.

[ELVIS]

Nice job...

You answered a few questions I had...

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Halliburton Hot Air
Shareholders blow a hole in the Kerry-Edwards “big oil” rhetoric.

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_bowyer_10-6-04.gif

“
So, if you bought the John Edwards view of the world, then three and a half years ago when Bush won the election, wouldn’t you have also bought Halliburton stock? If you did, you got hurt. Since Bush’s inauguration, Halliburton’s shares have fallen 11 percent. To put things in perspective, other oil-related industries have risen roughly 36 percent in this time.

In other words, not only has the Bush-Cheney administration failed to make the owners of Halliburton richer, it has instead made them poorer. And they are significantly worse off than the owners of other oil-related companies who are doing well.

According to the shareholders — the people most in-the-know — the data could not be clearer: The Bush-Cheney administration has been bad for Halliburton.

I would guess one of the main reasons Halliburton stock is under-performing could be because of the class-action lawsuit brought on by the shareholders, for accounting fraud.

Or maybe the investigations into allegations of improper billing of the US.

Sure Cheney tried to help Halliburton. He just fucked it up. That doesn't make it ok.

[ELVIS]

It also doesn't make Bush-Cheney a big oil ticket...

[Warham]

Yeah, he tried to help Halliburton when he was their CEO.

Also, Halliburton won the contracts because they were the ONLY contractor that could do the job in the time required by the U.S. Government. Not only that, but they are the only company in the U.S. that can do that kind of work, period. The other two companies are foreign.

So this notion of Halliburton getting these contracts because of a Cheney connection is incorrect. They get the contracts because they are the only American company that can do the job.

[Sgt Schultz]

Dick Morris agrees with Schultz

"Confronted with Dick Cheney's obvious competence, incisive parries to his charges and devastating rebuttal of his phony statistics, Edwards looked like the proverbial deer in the headlights."

Cheney made up much of the ground President Bush lost last week when he failed to return fire during his encounter with Edwards' boss, the former Morris contends.

And when Edwards did go on the attack, he "seemed, surprisingly, to be a shallow lightweight, almost transparent in his absence of heft and gravitas," says Morris.

"Cheney looked like the authority, the wise one, the arbiter of facts and statistics. . . . Cheney looked like a man and Edwards looked like a boy."

The high point: When Cheney said Edwards' Senate attendance record was so poor that he'd never met him before, despite his own role as president of the Senate.

Concludes Morris: "Dick Cheney helped Bush get well from a poor performance. John Edwards made it look like the Democratic ticket was out classed and out gunned."

[Warham]

It's amazing to think that Dick Morris used to work for Bill Clinton. He's had nothing but love for Bush this year.

[FORD]

Dick Morris is a toe sucking whore.

[ELVIS]

How enlightening...:rolleyes:

[Mezro]

i thought Dick won the first half and John Boy won the second.

Mezro...I'm ruling this bout a draw...

[Sgt Schultz]

http://www.myimgsrc.com/89ecbe/img/32026

[Warham]

I don't see how you could say Edwards won any part of the debate.

He said he's against outsourcing our jobs.

He's not against outsourcing our prescription drug plan to Canada, which would hurt drug companies in the U.S., possibly causing job loss here.

Now, is Edwards against other countries outsourcing their work to the U.S.?

You can't have it both ways, can you?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
http://www.myimgsrc.com/89ecbe/img/32026

Gee, that's original .... :rolleyes:

Edwards just isn't simian enough. Unlike the Chimp in Thief.

http://home.comcast.net/~chloraform/bush-chimp.jpg

[DLR'sCock]

Actually, although this debate showed that Cheney is the true Perisedent, and Bush the puppet(can you picture Bush with Cheney's hand up his ass???) Cheney lied quite a few times, adn Edwards nailed him many times....This was much closer the prez debate, but Edwards won....

[DLR'sCock]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/


http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/MSNBC_TV/041004/QOD_Debate_VP.jpg


Who won the debate? * 2,192,524 responses

Sen. John Edwards
59%


VP Dick Cheney
41%


Thank you for voting. Click to send us an e-mail to share your thoughts. Plus, see past voting results.

[DLR'sCock]

Cheney, Edwards wage aggressive battle
Debate sets tone for next showdown between Bush, Kerry
Wednesday, October 6, 2004 Posted: 12:54 PM EDT (1654 GMT)



CLEVELAND, Ohio (CNN) -- Tuesday night's debate was a good one. Multifaceted, aggressive and full of one-liners -- the vice presidential debate pitted two deeply contrasting world views.

Although a relative newcomer, John Edwards performed slightly better than Vice President Dick Cheney in my opinion -- although both men delivered solid performances, and each gave his side something for which to cheer.

A CBS News poll of undecided voters show 41 percent judged Edwards the winner and 28 percent favored Cheney. An ABC News poll with more Republicans than Democrats in its sample found the vice president the winner 43 percent to 35 percent.

Edwards entered the contest needing to: prove he was fit for high office, offer a compelling vision of life under a John Kerry administration and attack the Bush-Cheney administration on national security grounds. He did all three to a varying extent.

Indeed, he was articulate and substantive across a range of issues from Afghanistan to education, easily citing statistics, using rhetorical questions well and counterpunching when necessary. His recitation of a series of things that Cheney voted against, including the Head Start education program and Meals on Wheels for senior citizens, is certain to become a familiar Democratic refrain and part of a television ad.

Perhaps contrary to expectations, Edwards may have had his best moments while discussing foreign policy during the first hour. On national security issues, he challenged Cheney and President Bush not only on policy grounds ("the mess in Iraq") but on personal integrity issues as well ("you are still not being straight with the American people"). Edwards' weakest moment came when he was asked about being a heartbeat away from the presidency.

While he did not prevail overall, the vice president also performed well. He made the case that the war on terror is a challenging issue requiring strong leadership, but he did so without coming across as a curmudgeon. In fact, he had several funny lines ("that's a lot of money even by Massachusetts standards") and even a smiled a bit.

Cheney offered a stinging critique of Kerry and Edwards, arguing that their Senate records were undistinguished and undercut any campaign "tough talk." For Republicans who bemoaned the president's performance last week, Cheney's overall solid display and his several funny one-liners gave them reason to smile and certainly gave them a boost of confidence going into Friday's presidential debate in St. Louis, Missouri.

While Edwards won the debate (the second Democratic debate win in a row), perhaps the real star of the night was moderator Gwen Ifill of PBS. She asked pointed, tough and topical questions on a variety of issues, from AIDS and poverty to flip-flopping and Iran. Her tough questions probably contributed to the more aggressive tone of the debate as well as to the enlightening nature of many of the exchanges.

While it was intriguing and diverse, given the lack of a dominant winner (this was no Lloyd Bentsen over Dan Quayle) and the fact that it is a vice presidential and not presidential debate, Tuesday night's contest probably will not significantly shift the presidential polls.

Finally, it should be noted that this week is likely to be one of the three or four most significant political weeks of the campaign, filled with a number of other important political events that may reduce the amount of attention the debate receives in the next day or two.

Among the significant political events this week are comments from Paul Bremer, the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; violence in Iraq; the upcoming presidential debate; Friday's unemployment report; and Saturday's Afghanistan election. These will likely lessen the impact of the vice presidential debate.

One other event to watch for that may make waves this week -- the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday. Depending on the winner and what he or she says (remember Jimmy Carter's stinging critique of war with Iraq two years ago), that announcement could have an unexpected impact on the election.

So to summarize, Tuesday was a good night for both sides. Edwards, although the newcomer, was a little bit better. But Republicans got a good performance from their candidate, and Friday night should shape up to be the most contentious debate yet.

[Big Train]

Nice spin Clinton News Network....keep those plates spinning...

Cheney smoked him, period. Edwards was the little boy trying to get the best of Daddy. It ain't happening. Where did Cheney lie? Edwards was the constant shifter of questions, even the moderator herself ragged on him for his non-response to an Isreal question...the man has no experience on a national stage and the seams were showing last night.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train
Where did Cheney lie?

Normally, I would say "any time his lips were moving", but with his face frozen in that permanent angry sneer, they really DON'T move!

[FORD]

Incidentally CNN "accidentally" erased their poll from last night, because it showed Edwards as the clear winner. If you think there's any thing remotely "liberal" about that network, you obviously haven't watched it in years.

[Warham]

I heard that the DNC sent out spam e-mails to Dems yesterday giving them the websites for all these polls, so they would vote in force last night, making it look like Edwards was the big winner.

No wonder Clinton News Network erased it. They probably got the same e-mail from Terry McAwful, and figured that these polls were even less reliable than usual.

When MSNBS had their poll at 80% Edwards/20% Cheney, I knew something was at play, and also because Republicans didn't sit on their computers last night waiting for an e-mail from Ed Gillespie. Now that a day has passed, they've voted, making it a little more realistic, but not quite.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
I heard that the DNC sent out spam e-mails to Dems yesterday giving them the websites for all these polls, so they would vote in force last night, making it look like Edwards was the big winner.

No wonder Clinton News Network erased it. They probably got the same e-mail from Terry McAwful, and figured that these polls were even less reliable than usual.

When MSNBS had their poll at 80% Edwards/20% Cheney, I knew something was at play. It's now gone from that to 60%/40%, because Republicans didn't sit on their computers last night waiting for e-mails from Ed Gillespie. Now that a day has passed, they've voted, making it a little more realistic, but not quite.

But when Republicans did this in 2000, and Junior was declared the "winner" of his debates with Gore (and his performance was just as awful as it was last Thursday), then that was OK, right?

If I think Edwards did a better job, I'm gonna vote for him. If ABC's admittedly Republican slanted polls won't call me, it's not my fault.

[ODShowtime]

That would be funny if I voted for Cheney and Kerry because they were good at debating.

I didn't watch the whole thing, probably the last half-hour and Edwards did not get whupped or anything. And Cheney wasn't on the ropes either.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
But when Republicans did this in 2000, and Junior was declared the "winner" of his debates with Gore (and his performance was just as awful as it was last Thursday), then that was OK, right?

If I think Edwards did a better job, I'm gonna vote for him. If ABC's admittedly Republican slanted polls won't call me, it's not my fault.

Problem is FORD, even the Dem spinmeisters admit Gore lost two of the three debates, so it doesn't matter what the polls said. Of course, they were correct. Bush did club Gore four years ago.

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
That would be funny if I voted for Cheney and Kerry because they were good at debating.

I didn't watch the whole thing, probably the last half-hour and Edwards did not get whupped or anything. And Cheney wasn't on the ropes either.

They both got in their shots and talking points.

It was a draw. Although there were sometimes I felt that Cheney could've nailed Edwards more.

Also, when Cheney called him out by stating it was the first time he met him, I didn't see Edwards go back and remind him that they were introduced. My guess is that Edwards did not make that much of an impact on Cheney.

[Mezro]

Cheney right after the debate.

Mezro...hungry for the truth Dick?...

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Lqskdiver
They both got in their shots and talking points.

It was a draw. Although there were sometimes I felt that Cheney could've nailed Edwards more.

Also, when Cheney called him out by stating it was the first time he met him, I didn't see Edwards go back and remind him that they were introduced. My guess is that Edwards did not make that much of an impact on Cheney.

There's a theory that you can learn to tell when someone is lying if you can watch them when they tell real lies. I wonder if that theory would work in Cheney's case?

I'll have to re-watch that part. I bet he's probably not making eye contact.

and mezro, you're nuts dude :D

[Lqskdiver]

If you're talking about that particular exchange, he was looking straight at Edwards when he said that. It looked liked he believed that to be the truth. Edwards just had that deer in the headlights look.

[Warham]

Yes, he was looking right at Edwards' eyes, and he looked like he was telling the truth.

Edwards looked like he had just taken a kidney shot from Cassius Clay.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
Yes, he was looking right at Edwards' eyes, and he looked like he was telling the truth.

Edwards looked like he had just taken a kidney shot from Cassius Clay.

I don't think Edwards would really care what Cheney thinks about him. No one that rich gives a shit about what people think about them.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I don't think Edwards would really care what Cheney thinks about him. No one that rich gives a shit about what people think about them.

Kerry included? :rolleyes:

[Sgt Schultz]

Edwards at the debate with Cheney..........
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100604/content/rush_is_right.Par.0007.ImageFile.jpg

[ODShowtime]

what's with all the anthropomorphic politicians lately?

[Mezro]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
and mezro, you're nuts dude :D

I'm nuts, bolts and a Magic Rocks starter kit at the end of the universe.

Mezro...everybody takes politics too damn seriously; lighten up and give the ulcer a rest...

[DLR'sCock]

The thing is Cheney has met Edwards at least three times, but the main point is that Cheney is the first President of the Senate in US history, this is unprecedented, who has chosen to only meet with the Republicans and not with the Democrats. Yeah Lush/Phoney are "uniters"....right....



Cheney is some liar though.....

[Warham]

Not like that greedy trial lawyer John Edwards, who didn't bring up a shred of truth in the debate the other night.