My wife's amazing reaction to the debates.

[natedogg]

She's fairly a-political but happened to be sitting in the living room while I watched the debates. After about 1/2 an hour she says: " I think Dick Cheney ought to be the president out of all 4". (meaning out of Bush, Cheney, Kerry and Edwards).

I had been thinking that Cheney was destroying Edwards but... wow. Maybe he really does have a chance to win if he runs in four years?

Wait, no, you see, my wife was actually listening to what each debater had to say, but as we all know, Edwards got the more favorable reaction in the online instapolls because he looks better.

What a sad country.

natedogg

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, no, you see, my wife was actually listening to what each debater had to say, but as we all know, Edwards got the more favorable reaction in the online instapolls because he looks better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what questions were asked for the poll. I had a dinner to attend to last night so I didn't catch the debate and didn't bother to record it on my tivo unit. Funny that I schedule dinners during debate times just like Andy /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I would move immediately out of the country if Cheney was president. I shudder to think of such a dark dark day ever happening in America. I can deal with Bush, but Cheney is just such a douche bag.

[Knockwurst]

SaltCracka -- Dick IS the President of the United States. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Brix]

I definitely do not want to disrespect your wife when i say that her opinion is not more credible because she's 'a-political'. I would tend to doubt anyone’s opinion if they do not actively take an interest in the relevant field of knowledge.

I'm also suprised to see that she thought cheney had a decisive victory in the debate. I thought the debate as a whole was pretty even. And i think the polls are starting to reflect that. Theres now 2 polls that have since come out and both have given different results as to who actually won.

[wacki]

Adios I recorded it ..... In DVD quality with my hauppauge, if you want a copy I can put it on a server for you to download.

I hear it's on CSPAN as well.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
SaltCracka -- Dick IS the President of the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, the president is a DICK /images/graemlins/cool.gif, and so is the VP.

[tek]

George H. W. Hitler is the President, Cheney and George Jr are his puppets...

[Edge34]

Nothing like a Hitler reference to show just how ignorant someone can be....

What value posts like these add.

[Beavis68]

Chenney has many admirable qualities, he is a clear, plain speaker, he is strong willed, and he is even tempered. I wish we saw more of him.

[ThaSaltCracka]

you forgot secret meetings with oil executives to discuss U.S. policy and his vacations with supreme court justices, oh also his association with Halliburton. You are right, he is a real stand up guy...he stands up for himself.

[adios]

Sure PM me if you want.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I definitely do not want to disrespect your wife when i say that her opinion is not more credible because she's 'a-political'. I would tend to doubt anyone’s opinion if they do not actively take an interest in the relevant field of knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course that is a valid point. But I do think it was interesting that a person who didn't know about Halliburton or Edwards' background as a trial lawyer, who just sat there and listened to the two men make their points, came away thinking Dick Cheney should be president.

The reaction of informed partisans is less interesting to me.

natedogg

[PITTM]

if Cheney was elected president i would literally go to washington and throw firebombs at the white house.

rj

[PITTM]

yeah, someone who would target one group of people and kill them being compared to hitler is crazy, you left wing wackos...

rj

[Edge34]

Pitt, you really don't think through any of your posts in this forum do you?

First you read maybe the first word of one of my other posts and tell me I said something I didn't say. Then you post this drivel about "someone targeting a group of people and killing them"...Since you obviously lack the capacity to reason for yourself, I'll spell it out for you.

Adolf Hitler targeted and INTENTIONALLY TORTURED millions of innocent Jewish people - he had them burned alive, gassed, and I'm sure a lot of things we don't even know about yet. The man was a sick, twisted murderer bent on wreaking havoc on innocents for no real reason.

And since your delusional mind can't seem to comprehend the difference between that and a war with unfortunate, yet unintended casualties...well, you need to graduate from 3rd grade before posting here acting like you know what you're talking about again.

Not all left-wingers are wackos, but I think you're a perfect candidate.

-Edge

[natedogg]

No you wouldn't. And you won't move out of the country either.

But you may want to consider toning down the violent threats to cabinet members on public message boards until the PATRIOT act is repealed.

natedogg

[natedogg]

You gonna join Alec Baldwin? Oh wait, he didn't move out as promised.

Honestly, what a ridiculous thing to assert. You're not going to move out of the country if that happens so why say so?

natedogg

[Edge34]

Hey Nate,

Don't worry about Pitt. He likes to talk really big and try to make people think he's smarter and more knowledgeable than he is.

Of course he's not going to throw firebombs at the White House...suicide by Secret Service is no way to go.

Oh yeah, what happened to Alec Baldwin leaving the country if Bush got elected? Is there any record of ANY of those "if that happens, I swear I'll..." things ACTUALLY happening, or do people just like to spout a bunch of garbage?

-Edge

EDIT: I was just in the process of typing my Alec Baldwin comment as you posted yours...nice timing nate.

[nothumb]

...is that someone named 'natedogg' is married.

No offense dude, I just kinda figured you were about 18 and a little precocious.

I thought Edwards did a better job for the sole reason that his vicious attacks were for the most part on-topic. Cheney dropped the ball on a few domestic issues and got caught with his dick in the wind on the defense budget thing. (For those that missed it, Cheney accused Kerry of voting to cut a lot of weapons programs, and Edwards pointed out correctly that Cheney had supported cutting many of the same programs and was therefore a dick.)

I also should say that I despise Dick Cheney and find Edwards amusing and silly (anyone notice him doing the Clinton thumb thing? I thought it was hilarious). The fact that I knew Cheney was being patently dishonest in several situations (and didn't know of any for Edwards, if there were any) also made me think he got nailed worse, but I realize that a lot of people may not have realized he was lying.

NT

[Rick Nebiolo]

ray zee should like the fact he is a trout fisherman

[ThaSaltCracka]

how do you know I wouldn't?
I really dislike and distrust Cheney, so its very likely that I would consider moving elsewhere. I shudder to think what dark path that man would lead us down.

[PITTM]

i dont know where your sudden urge for personal attacks came from, but its cute, keep it up.


firstly, i believe i should respond to your previous accusations of having not read your previous post since i had not seen your earlier reply. i read your argument to be that "here, look at the information the president was looking at, dont you agree we should have gone to war". i commented that the commander in chief should take a little more of the blame than he has. your argument itself was very weak, i believe this because you made 2 arguments, both of which were very weak reasons to GO FIGHT A WAR THAT INVOLVES THOUSANDS OF CASUALTIES. basically, argument 1, the UN security council is weak, the sanctions werent working(your opinion) and that being said we should go to war? ok, that is your opinion, i dont think i will be able to sway you from it, but i disagree, anyways lets proceed to argument 2. This argument is even more entertaining, not only because you actually say that since we werent positive that saddam didnt have WMD's it made the political climate that where it was reasonable to go fight a war against them.

i think you completely misunderstand the liberal point of view on the war. i dont just think, "boy, i sure think the president is stupid for going to war." but i think more as such, "why did we go to war? are these reasons valid? why ELSE would we have gone to war?" and so on. the fact that you think sending the country to war is justifiable based on; a) your opinion of the effectiveness of the United Nations sanctions in iraq or b) the fact that we couldnt be sure that Iraq didnt have WMDs, makes for a weak argument and i hope you can understand why many liberals do not agree with the reasoning of the president in sending us to war. I hope that you can understand the current situation even better. The liberals still feel the same about the points you justified going to war with, but now we can feel pretty comfortable about point 2 being completely incorrect. and we still wonder if point 1 would have been enough to justify a war.

To say that this is just a war with unfortunate consequences does no justice to anyone involved. you realize the many many thousands of people are being/have been killed as a result of this war. maybe if there were a good reason for the war it would be unfortunate, but at this point it is manical to say that it is unfortunate people died, but..(insert reason for going to war here). and that we have to live with these deaths. how am i supposed to be confident in the conservative leadership if the last 2 conservatives both went and fought a war in iraq and after declaring victory for a 2nd time over a year ago we are still in iraq, still racking up casualties and we still have no reasonable exit strategy... you can see how liberals are troubled.

anyways, i hope this response pleases you more than my last few had. i think the comparisons to hitler come from the abu-garib prison scandal and the fact that many many iraqis were tortured and humiliated, whether you believe it was done by the administrations will is up to you, any debate would be far too much heresay, but i cant say that i think much more of the way the current administration has handled the situation in iraq than i would think of the way saddam was handling the situation in iraq.

rj

[cjromero]

Have you actually read the findings of the nonpartisan investigations about Cheney's "ties" with Halliburton and about the fact that the government awarding of Iraq contracts to Halliburton was above board? If you had, you wouldn't be making this reference.

Democrats continue to use the word "Halliburton" because the mere mention of the word causes voters to think negatively about Cheney. Halliburton is one of the few companies in the world qualified to do reconstruction work in Iraq. Most of the contracts it received for work in Iraq were the result of competitive bidding. For the "no bid" contract, the nonpartisan investigation found that Halliburton was the only U.S. company qualified to do the work in the short time frame required, although there were several foreign companies that could have done it. That is why it was concluded that the "no bid" contract Halliburton received was justified.

Halliburton has also been involved with government contracts for years, including contracts awarded during the Clinton administration. And what about the unfortunate Halliburton/KBR employees that have been kidnapped and/or killed over the past 2 years while working on projects in the Middle East? Let's demonize them as well while we are at it.

It's an utter and complete red herring of an issue. Just like the amendment to ban gay marriage on the Republican side. Anything to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

The overcharging by Halliburton is a separate issue and one that should be dealt with accordingly, whether it be through fines or a refusal to award future contracts or whatever.