The W
Views: 100728008
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.11.14 1055
The W - Current Events & Politics - VP Debate (Page 3)
This thread has 5 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.50
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
(1061 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (48 total)
BigSteve
Pepperoni








Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2871 days
Last activity: 2599 days
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.21
I thought that Edwards was way too condescending. One case was where he said something to the effect of (about gay marraige): "in 200 + years one state has never been forced to recognize the marriage of another. Let me explain that to you...." Yeah, John, even us commonfolk knew what you meant. He did that a few times. And Cheyney was probably better than any of the four debators in the past week.
Joseph Ryder
Head cheese








Since: 19.3.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 1229 days
Last activity: 762 days
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.30
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    I thought that Edwards was way too condescending. One case was where he said something to the effect of (about gay marraige): "in 200 + years one state has never been forced to recognize the marriage of another. Let me explain that to you...." Yeah, John, even us commonfolk knew what you meant. He did that a few times. And Cheyney was probably better than any of the four debators in the past week.


I'm guessing it's this quote:

"I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary. Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage.

"Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about."


I don't think he was being condescending. It's a simple tactic to a) simplify things so EVERYONE knows what he's saying (or put it in more familiar terms) as well as, and perhaps most importantly, b) eat up time.

Which leads me to the cirtique of Cheney. First off, I think both the senator and the VP did relatively solid jobs last night (neither better than Kerry, neither worse than Bush), but Cheney more times than once made the mistake Bush made when turning down the chance to speak. I know the partisan groups might like it ("hey, he already took him to the woodshed, he's got nothing more to say!!!") but for the sake of the undecided, you HAVE to use every second you get to make as many points as you can. That doesn't mean repeating yourself...if you're fresh out of things to say on a certain topic, change topics! I thought it was more widely accepted that in debate every second is precious. To his credit, Bush really only did that once (a moment Kerry totally pounced on), but Cheney did it numerous times. Just turned down the chance to express ideas for 30 or 90 seconds. It makes you look like you're conceding a point. If you're going to concede a point, at least use the time to hammer down a different point.

Another is posture...again, the partisans don't give a shit about posture, but many undecideds do. Cheney being hunched over, talking to the desk, and muffling his microphone with his head resting on his hands didn't do him or Bush any favors. Just as Bush's "everyman" posture didn't help the fact that he was already five inches shorter than Kerry.

I thought after Bush's speech Cheney would be a "posture pal" and lead by example, but he was even worse. Now I don't know whether to expect Bush in platforms standing 6'2, or Bush slouched over standing 5'4.

(edited by Joseph Ryder on 6.10.04 1559)
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#43 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.17
    Originally posted by Jaguar
    As for this asinine debate over Senate votes while campaigning... what exactly have GWB and The Dick been doing for our country since THEY started campaigning? Any visits with other countries? Any new policies? Any new actual plans on running this country? Last thing they've done that got in the news was the idiotic Gay Marriage Ban. And that was what, four months ago?

    Pot, Kettle - You're both stupid.


Lets see, besides, you know, RUNNING THE COUNTRY, what has President Bush done?

Signing of a new law extending tax relief for working families.

Overseeing an economy that Alan Greenspan called "the healthiest in the past twenty years".

Being a commander in chief with a 80% approval rating from the men and women fighting the war in Iraq.

Just to name a few things.




asteroidboy
Andouille








Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas

Since last post: 1459 days
Last activity: 367 days
#44 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.06
I'd call this one a push, but Cheney gets big points for unwittingly sending voters to an anti-Bush site (factcheck.com). And for getting busted on "never having met" Edwards.

Also points for Cheney for again arrogantly brushing off the Haliburton charges. Unbelievable, considering the company does business with the Axis of Evil.

I'm sure if it were Clinton in those shoes, it would be no big deal, either.

Edwards came off like he always does, with a quasi-televangelist aura. And I hate how he puts "e's" on the end of his "no's." But lots of people from the South do that.



-- Asteroid Boy

Now on 411


Wiener of the day: 23.7.02, 3.12.03

"If you want me to watch the shows, buy tickets when you come to town, buy t-shirts, and pay for a PPV every three days, you bet your ass I'm going to hard to impress. And when you give me stuff that blows and then tell me I don't get a vote on sharing that opinion, I'm going to tell you to go catch an STD." - Hogan's My Dad

"My brother saw the Undertaker walking through an airport." - Rex
"Was he no-selling?" - Me


Net Hack Slasher
Banger








Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind

Since last post: 3619 days
Last activity: 2039 days
#45 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.01
factcheck.com actually were nice enough to put a link up to what Cheney actually wanted people to go to... I don't know if I'd do the same, then again I'm a prick lol.

I actually liked the way Edwards talked, by saying stuff like "let me explain this to you" and "let me tell you about our plan". Much like I think Kerry did a good job in removing the "Flip flop" tag on Debate 1, I think Edwards really made it good effort to make it seem like he and Kerry aren't just running as "Anti-Bush" but actually do have opinions on their own... Speaking of Flip Flop, I wasn't crazy Edwards response to that question by just saying "Well they did it to!" I liked Kerry response of it more, but doing some thinking Kerry did a good job in his maybe there wasn't a need for Edwards to repeat it so he just went with another dimension of showing Bush hypocrisy.

Cheney did well & thought he had the slight edge when initially watching it. He was more aggressive & did what his team always does. Make the focus on Kerry and not on what happened the last 4 years under Team Dub's watch. And I would guess most political "smarks"(for lack of a better word) would say Cheney got the edge... But the edge he got I think could have turned off some others, he did direct the debate to what he wanted, but will some view that as he's hiding something. Cheney didn't do anything to soften his image, he still seemed Darth Vader like. Edwards was the polar opposite being totally charming. He looked excited & full of energy. I did like his little exchange with the moderator when she figured out she made a mistake.

Cheney worked a lot of strong soundbites and "oohs" spots of course the "I never met you". But as it turns out to be a lie we'll see if it bites Cheney on the arse. Edwards really should have spoke up and said "Well that's a LIE mister Cheney, because I met you!" but instead Edwards seem to be thrown aback by it... The 90% coalition casualties being U.S solders as Cheney lowers the number by adding Iraqi police is bordering on mis-information.

Most uncomfortable part of the debate talking about Cheney daughter. I never seen compliments that can be perceived as arrows. But there was probably a message behind Edwards compliments towards the Religious right. That even a major conservative who has this situation personalized doesn't see it in your way of thinking... Speaking of this, I also liked Edwards saying America has never been more divided since this administration took office, that is not an accident (probably should have used coincidence, but still strong).



smark/net attack wienerville advisory holds at ORANGE alert - High (JBL is STILL WWE champion and now smarks arch enemy HHH is the World Champion. Major red threat, but the undercard seems okay. The alert holds... for now)- 9/19
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 32 days
Last activity: 2 days
#46 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.14
What I got from the debate, other than it was pretty much a draw - i.e. you though your candidate won. Edwards soesn't seem to be as much of a liability as I thought he'd be (I was rooting for Gephardt, who I'm assuming will end up with some cabinet position in a Kerry administration).

#1 - I totally want to do Gwen Ifill. Rrrrow! Don't ask, I don't know why.

#2 - I have no idea if Edwards tactic of "Repeat your points if you get half a chance" was better than Cheney's "just don't say anything if it's a topic you'd rather not discuss." Not just the Gay daughter thing (which was borderline brilliant/sleezy on Edward's part), but with the Senate record. After Edwards listed off all the stuff Cheney voted against, Cheney didn't even touch it.

#3 - the most damaging Edwards moment - for me at least - was after the debate when they had Mary Beth Cahill on and she was asked twice "What's one of John Edward's accomplishments as a Senator" and she couldn't come up with a DAMN THING, and completely avoided the question looking quite uncomfortable the whole time. Keep her the hell off TV.

#4 - I trust Edwards. Why? He's handsome, powerful, has a fat ugly wife, and has never had so much as a rumor of taking the occasional hummer from the hot young intern. And you can of course bet that if there was any remote inkling of such a possibility it would be all over the place by now.

#5 - thought it was interesting that Edwards put forth limits on liability lawsuits in regards to a three strikes rules for lawyers. I think it is an interesting concept, but will be buried by the fact that he is a rich trial lawyer and has no credibility on the issue.

By that logic, that fact that Cheney's a rich oil man gives him no credibility on energy issues. Hey, I agree with both statement, just wondering if you do also.




Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
-
Euripides


PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2860 days
Last activity: 2703 days
AIM:  
#47 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
Your point #4 is rather crudely put, but you might be on to something. From what I know of his family life, which admittedly is not much, he does seem like a good guy. Can't be easy to lose a child at 16 and keep a marriage together, especially when he must have pretty easy access to temptation.

As for Mary Beth Cahill, isn't she the campaign manager? One of the lead spinmesiters? 'Sides, Joe Lockhart isn't much better. Maybe they should just leave it all to Terry McAuliffe.



In Theo We Trust
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#48 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.59

    #4 - I trust Edwards. Why? He's handsome, powerful, has a fat ugly wife, and has never had so much as a rumor of taking the occasional hummer from the hot young intern.


Or the fat, beret-wearing intern.

And give Mrs. Edwards some slack....she's had five kids, for crying out loud. You'd be a bit chubby yourself.





Pages: Prev 1 2 3
Thread rated: 5.50
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
Thread ahead: Debate Reaction Thread
Next thread: Obituary endorsing Kerry
Previous thread: On A Lighter Note
(1061 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
First thing: What an amazing coincidence! Secondly, Israel has a lot in common with all the other rogue states in the Middle East when you look at their militarism, so the distinction seems just a bit arbitrary sometimes.
The W - Current Events & Politics - VP Debate (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.134 seconds.