Vice-presidential debate
- Thread starter Inkara1
- Start date
rrfield
New Member
I thought it was pretty even though Cheaney may have been a little better, expecially on the gay marriage topic. Edwards had certain topics he wanted to talk about and would sometimes ignore the moderators question so he could say what he wanted to say. This format was better for Cheaney's style; it doesn't suit Edwards at all. If they were allowed to actually debate I think Edwards would have done better.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
rrfield said:
Edwards lost credibility when he brough up Cheyney's family. This was supposed to be a debate about national policy, and that low-blow was noticed by quite a few people. Seems that the Dem's resort to such tactics when they are in a losing position...
Inkara1 said:
I can......but then I'm double jointed....so mebbe he is too
I dunno wot it is with that bloke.....I usually don't give a shiney shite about wot anyone looks like, but with him I have this huge urge to give him such a hefty kick in the bollocks that folks will think he's got mumps.....I think it's that smug grin or mebbe the plastic looking hair
BeardofPants
New Member
LOL, so have I, Les. 
*silly furriners*
*wonders if he wears plastic underoos like Ken*
*silly furriners*
*wonders if he wears plastic underoos like Ken*
Angry Again
Banned
My brief analysis.
That sonic boom heard at the start of last night's vice presidential debate was the sound of Dick Cheney breaking the land-speed record for distortion in a national political forum.
Moderator Gwen Ifill asked Cheney about the now overwhelming consensus that the there is no evidence to support the vice president's claim of a consequential connection between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network.
Yet, when handed an opportunity to acknowledge, once and for all, that he was wrong, Cheney chose instead to peddle the snake oil one more time.
Without producing any new evidence, and without acknowledging the fact that he now stands virtually alone in defending the fantasy, the vice president pressed the claim that the invasion and occupation of Iraq were somehow part of a war on terrorism.
"It's important to look at all of our developments in Iraq within the broader context of the global war on terror," said Cheney, as he began to craft an answer designed to continue fostering the lie that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have in any way made the United States safer.
John Edwards hit back hard, and effectively.
"Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of September 11th and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commission has said it. Your own secretary of state has said it. And you've gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There is not," the Democrat said. "In fact the CIA is now about to report that the connection between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein is tenuous at best. And, in fact, the secretary of defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the connection."
Rarely has a more important exchange taken place in a modern political debate.
Unfortunately, in an era when form often trumps content, the full import of the exchange was obscured by horserace questions.
Most of the instant analysis of the vice presidential debate came down to the awarding of style points. Cheney and Edwards are both experienced and well informed. Both are able communicators. And both held their own in their one and only debate.
There was general agreement that Edwards performed best in the second half of the debate, which dealt with the bread-and-butter issues of jobs and health care. But the real victory came in those first minutes of the debate, during the foreign policy section that was supposed to play to Cheney's strength.
It was there that Edwards refused to allow Cheney to continue spreading the lie that suggests a linkage between the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Edwards did so with such effectiveness that an embarrassed Cheney grumbled, "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror."
Cheney was wrong.
The MSNBC cable network quickly reproduced a "Meet the Press" interview with Cheney in which he made just that suggestion. And, of course, anyone who has listened to Cheney on the campaign trail knows that the vice president has been fostering this misimpression for months.
But, even as Cheney tried to spin himself out of the web of lies in which he found himself, it was clear that Edwards had trumped him. No doubt Cheney will continue fostering the fantasy that the Iraq invasion had something to do with the war on terror. But it will be harder now, thanks to John Edwards' blunt assertion of the truth.
edit - this article seems to have come verbatim from the Capital Times. According to OTC A.U.P. article 4.7.3., when you signed up at OTC "You agreed not to upload, transmit, distribute, establish means of uploading, transmission, distribution, or otherwise publish (collectively "Post") through any Service, any material that is: An infringement of the intellectual property rights, including, but not limited to, copyrights and trademarks, of any person or entity;". If you plan to utilize others' works to prove points, please provide links in future, further posts like this one will be fully deleted. - Leslie
That sonic boom heard at the start of last night's vice presidential debate was the sound of Dick Cheney breaking the land-speed record for distortion in a national political forum.
Moderator Gwen Ifill asked Cheney about the now overwhelming consensus that the there is no evidence to support the vice president's claim of a consequential connection between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network.
Yet, when handed an opportunity to acknowledge, once and for all, that he was wrong, Cheney chose instead to peddle the snake oil one more time.
Without producing any new evidence, and without acknowledging the fact that he now stands virtually alone in defending the fantasy, the vice president pressed the claim that the invasion and occupation of Iraq were somehow part of a war on terrorism.
"It's important to look at all of our developments in Iraq within the broader context of the global war on terror," said Cheney, as he began to craft an answer designed to continue fostering the lie that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have in any way made the United States safer.
John Edwards hit back hard, and effectively.
"Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of September 11th and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commission has said it. Your own secretary of state has said it. And you've gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There is not," the Democrat said. "In fact the CIA is now about to report that the connection between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein is tenuous at best. And, in fact, the secretary of defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the connection."
Rarely has a more important exchange taken place in a modern political debate.
Unfortunately, in an era when form often trumps content, the full import of the exchange was obscured by horserace questions.
Most of the instant analysis of the vice presidential debate came down to the awarding of style points. Cheney and Edwards are both experienced and well informed. Both are able communicators. And both held their own in their one and only debate.
There was general agreement that Edwards performed best in the second half of the debate, which dealt with the bread-and-butter issues of jobs and health care. But the real victory came in those first minutes of the debate, during the foreign policy section that was supposed to play to Cheney's strength.
It was there that Edwards refused to allow Cheney to continue spreading the lie that suggests a linkage between the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Edwards did so with such effectiveness that an embarrassed Cheney grumbled, "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror."
Cheney was wrong.
The MSNBC cable network quickly reproduced a "Meet the Press" interview with Cheney in which he made just that suggestion. And, of course, anyone who has listened to Cheney on the campaign trail knows that the vice president has been fostering this misimpression for months.
But, even as Cheney tried to spin himself out of the web of lies in which he found himself, it was clear that Edwards had trumped him. No doubt Cheney will continue fostering the fantasy that the Iraq invasion had something to do with the war on terror. But it will be harder now, thanks to John Edwards' blunt assertion of the truth.
edit - this article seems to have come verbatim from the Capital Times. According to OTC A.U.P. article 4.7.3., when you signed up at OTC "You agreed not to upload, transmit, distribute, establish means of uploading, transmission, distribution, or otherwise publish (collectively "Post") through any Service, any material that is: An infringement of the intellectual property rights, including, but not limited to, copyrights and trademarks, of any person or entity;". If you plan to utilize others' works to prove points, please provide links in future, further posts like this one will be fully deleted. - Leslie
ResearchMonkey
Well-Known Member
You know AA, I'm disappointed. On a lot of the issues you posted on I would have tended to agree with you. You have, however, made a grave error here, one that can not and will not be overlooked. You seem to have some knowledge of how message boards work and certainly this is not the first you have come to. To post anothers work and then take credit for it yourself is reprehensible. You have discredited not only yourself but the policies and judgments you and I stand behind by doing this. Please, if you are going to post others work, quote it and tag it as such. It also wouldn't hurt to provide a link to the work if you have it available.