PDA

View Full Version : VP Debate Just to be fair


don knot
10-05-2004, 07:01 PM
Well, since last week we had the long discussion about who won the 1st presidential debate, so it's only fair to discuss the VP debate. Obviously it was a public slaughtering of John Edwards, which i felt sorry for because i feel that he is a nice man and do like him. After hearing the records of the kerry/edwards senate voting record and record on the Irag situation I (a democ.) cannot of sound mind vote for my party. I am interested to hear the opinions of those who participated in the discussion last week.

Jonas
10-05-2004, 07:08 PM
I was very shocked and pleased at the Dick Chenney I saw tonite. He was just awesome. I could not really concentrate on what was going on because I was busy feeling sorry for Edwards. He looked out of place and much like a child who just got spanked in a wal-mart toy aisle. The records of Kerry/edwards which was not mentioned last friday will be the catalyst that will give the bush/cheney party the win in november. Again, it was very un-settling to see Edwards have to defend the absurd record of his running mate.

Phil
10-05-2004, 07:49 PM
Vice Presidential Debate = No one cares.

johnathan smith
10-05-2004, 08:17 PM
I generally would tend to agree with Phil, but this years Vp debate dealt with a lot of unresolved issues. If you watched the debate it's obvious who won. I do think it's a shame that Sen. Edwards has the impossible task of defending Kerry's records. This was an old fashioned street mugging despite what the "tampered with" polls might show.

silent bob
10-06-2004, 12:08 AM
If you haven't seen the debate, I think you should form your own opinion by reading the transcript or watching the video available on CNN.com and the like.

Whatever you decide is your business (as is your choice to post it here), but I certainly hope nobody forms an opinion based on "summaries" of the debate put forward here.

Ace
10-06-2004, 05:32 AM
Cheney's performance was impressive.

Edwards came off as an incompetent bufoon.

magiset
10-06-2004, 07:19 AM
"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_04/100704Z.shtml

Sacco
10-06-2004, 07:46 AM
Relax, magiset. If Bush is in office another 4 years I'm sure he'll revoke Martin Luther King Day and replace it with RONALD REAGAN DAY--

He might even inaugurate Reagan Day by saying:

Stars Wars turned out to be an expensive fantasy but he had INFECTIOUS OPTIMISM, thus Martin needs to get in the back of the bus again and let REAGAN rule!

Mind you... I'm quoting Bush here-- he will say this statement on Jan. 17,2005. Call me a Mr. Reporter now, buddy.

Sacco
10-06-2004, 07:58 AM
Sometimes as reporters, we screw up. I'm sorry, America. My sources were misleading... what Bush will actually say on Jan.17, 2005 is...

Reagan crushed workers rights but he was someone I could sit down and have a beer with. As for Martin, he was kind of a root beer man. Let us mourn Reagan again today, and everyday, with BEER!

Ben42
10-06-2004, 09:22 AM
I guess you might think Chenney "publicly slaughtered" Edwards if you actually believed any of the words coming out of his mouth last night.

Do yourselves a favor and, as the Vice-Prez suggested, go to www.factcheck.org and see how many lies he spewed last night.

If Bush and Co. are sooooo strong in this election then why do they feel the need to distort and mislead the voting public at every opportunity?

don knot
10-06-2004, 12:09 PM
It's all about the record. Even the best lawyer in the US Senate could not defend the Kerry record. I am still trying to find out where Kerry/edwards stand on the issues of Iraq and terrorrism. I am an honest seeker and am still confused. With 2 debates down the American public still have no answer.

don knot
10-06-2004, 12:12 PM
Please let me qualify my last statement becuase, I do like Edwards and think he would make a fine Vice president or even President in around 8 years from now. He's just obviously not ready. Not being able to defend Kerry's record is no knock on Edwards as that is an impossible task.

Hedges
10-06-2004, 02:00 PM
The scarey thing this VP debate highlights is...President Bush is not in charge...he's just an actor...a puppet.

Dick Cheney and the other old white men are running things...and when they screw up, they hide behind dumb old "W".

It's sad.

bigserving
10-06-2004, 02:57 PM
Next time, they should hook up a lie detector to Cheney. The thing would be cutting power to half the country.

Like the Vice President said, visit www.factcheck.com in order to get some clarifications of the truth!

Jonas
10-06-2004, 03:08 PM
And on today's menu..... Sour Grapes :)
It's kind of unfair that the GOP has finally figured out that the Kerry/Edwards records are at best absurd. Look out for Friday night!

perfmode
10-06-2004, 05:45 PM
You are going to base your votes on voting records and attendance records? George Bush is Mr. Absent himself.

Jonas
10-06-2004, 05:59 PM
No offense Perfmode, but that was a pretty weak response. We are all Americans here and I think everyone needs to get acurate facts before voting. I would like to hear you explain Kerry's position on Irag and the War on Terror. If by some chance you can post a reply, you need to contact the DNC and a. clue them in and B. tell them to ditch Edwards and hire you. I'll be on the lookout for you on the campaign trail :)

perfmode
10-06-2004, 06:08 PM
No offense Perfmode, but that was a pretty weak response. We are all Americans here and I think everyone needs to get acurate facts before voting. I would like to hear you explain Kerry's position on Irag and the War on Terror. If by some chance you can post a reply, you need to contact the DNC and a. clue them in and B. tell them to ditch Edwards and hire you. I'll be on the lookout for you on the campaign trail :)

I don't give two ***** about Kerry's policy in Iraq. I'll take anyone but Bush. That's the camp I'm in at this point. I don't care if Kerry is having an affair with Jennifer Lopez while flip-flopping in the line at Finagle-a-Bagel because he can't decide on a cream cheese. I'll do anything I can to get Bush out.

chad shaver
10-06-2004, 06:13 PM
Didn't you tell me that you were 16?

Hedges
10-06-2004, 07:06 PM
Oh well...Bush will win the election.

All republicans made up their mind about who they would vote for long ago based on the following three issues:

1) Money - wealthy folks vote republican because they know republicans take care of the "rich".

OR

2) Bible-based issues - the republicans snare the middle/lower class vote by *using* the bible-based issues (*g*a*y* marriage, abortion, seperation church & state, etc).

OR

3) Looks/accents/swagger - Bush is a good ole boy...one of the hometown folks. You can trust him 'cus he's a straight-shooter.

The man has mastered the art of looking/acting/sounding like a good ole boy, and at the same time, all the rich people wink at each other 'cus they know he'll take care of them. They are winking all the way to the bank.

I can see why rich people vote republican...purely selfish. I don't blame them, I guess. But, it's sad how the lower/middle classes (the majority) get manipulated.

So...perfmode...don't waste too much energy trying to convert folks to your way of thinking. Trust me...it ain't gonna happen. And...we'll see 4 more lovely years of war, conflict of interest, jobs shipped oversees, and tax-cuts for those who make over $200k.

My advice...focus on tennis. There's no intelligent life here.

David Pavlich
10-06-2004, 07:22 PM
Hedges:

When was the last time you went to a poor man to get a job?

It's the wealthy entrepreneurs that employ most of those that want to be employed. You are obviously suffering from class envy.

By the way, if sKerry is elected, he'll be the wealthiest man to ever occupy the White House. He's a liberal Democrat. Sure would mess up your little diatribe about rich Republicans, now wouldn't it? Have you written the senator with the same drivel that you have posted here? Hmmmmmm? Of course not...he's a Democrat so he's allowed to be wealthy. Indeed.

David

David Pavlich
10-06-2004, 07:24 PM
Senator Edwards looked like the proverbial deer in the headlights.

And remember....10 out of 10 terrorists agree; ANYONE BUT BUSH!

David

Hedges
10-06-2004, 08:10 PM
Dave...sorry to get into "it" with you. You've helped me with stringing issues and I really appreciate it. Seriously.

>> When was the last time you went to a poor man to get a job?
>> It's the wealthy entrepreneurs that employ most of those that
>> want to be employed. You are obviously suffering from class envy.

I come from a state where the large majority are self-employed...*and* they are lower/middle class. They've never worked for anyone else and never will. But they still vote republican because of reasons #2 and #3 above.

Most entrepeneurs are *not* wealthy...they struggle...many fail...many just squeak by..and very few make it big. But, they all take pride in creating something themselves and not being dependent on "the man". And even when they struggle, they provide paying jobs.

Keeping it close to home, I suspect most tennis shop owners just barely squeak by...at least during the first 5 years or so? Shouldn't these struggling entrepeneurs get the tax breaks rather than the ones who have the big corporate jobs paying more than $200k?

Look...I'm no big fan of Kerry or Edwards. I'd rather go MTB'ing with Bush! We're talking policies/platform here....not personalities. And I only have 2 platforms to choose from.

So, for example, I'd like to see the person I vote for represent the interests of the majority over the minority...that's all. You know...Democracy. Will Kerry do that? I'm not sure...he says he will but he's a slick politician and anything can happen.

Will Bush? Nope. That's a certainty because that *is* at the core of the republican platform. Big business & the wealthy come first.

David...if you and everyone in your family/friends network make $200k or more...cool! You *should* vote republican. If you are ok with spending $120 billion to fix up Iraq all by ourselves...cool! Vote republican. If you are lucky enough to not have chronic medical problems that require expensive medications, cool! Vote republican!

But, if you or anyone in your family is not so fortunate or has chosen a different lifestyle (or just can't make that much $$), then you might reconsider because it sure looks to me like you are being duped by your party.

>> By the way, if sKerry is elected, he'll be the wealthiest man to
>> ever occupy the White House. He's a liberal Democrat.
>> Sure would mess up your little diatribe about rich Republicans,
>> now wouldn't it?

Our political system tends to elect wealthy folks...so that's a given no matter the platform. Most of them have money. No problem.

The point is, whose interest does the President represent? The vast majority of his voters (lower/middle class) or the minority ($200k & above)? Fortunately for the upper class folks, the lower/middle class appears to be voting republican. And that's what my wealthy buddies are winking about; W's swagger and bible talk work ;-)

But, I'd like to see the majority interest represented. If you think W does that...cool! Vote for him. No problem. Works for me :-D Heck...all I *really* care about is strengthening up my rotator cuff.

Ben42
10-07-2004, 06:23 AM
As Iíve said before, if the GOPís message and platform is sooooo strong then why canít they just run on their record?

If the Dems records are sooooo weak, why does the GOP feel the need to distort their comments and lie about them?

@wright
10-07-2004, 08:54 AM
Yeah, rich people vote Republican(myth), but SUPER rich people vote Democrat because it is the fashionable/HollyWEIRD thing to do. How did sKerry(sorry to steal that one from you, David, but I like it!) get to sing on stage with Bon Jovi and all his other HollyWEIRD buddies? Because they are all RICH and think they are important if they go to fashionable liberal events. Brad & Jenn? I heard a phrase that was interesting, but not necessarily true: "When you are young, you vote Democrat if you have a heart, and when you are old you vote Republican if you have money."

@wright
10-07-2004, 09:01 AM
Hedges, that was an interesting post. It all really depends on who you are going to bat for. If you are going to bat for all the people out there with the bad luck with medical bills and not being able to take care of themselves, that is certainly what the Democrats specialize in. Personally, I know there are lots of people out there in need, and there is no way all those needs are going to be met without us paying %75 of our earnings into taxes/social security, so I'd like to keep as much of my earnings as possible. All my family/friends can and do take care of themselves.

PugArePeopleToo
10-07-2004, 09:21 AM
Hi Hedges, most entrepreneurs or small businessmen tend to vote Republican because of less taxation and less government regulation promised, not necessary delivered, by the GOP. I am not sure if Democrats represent the interest of the majority in the US. Their economic platform is very much gear toward the populist sentiment of take from the rich and give to the poor. It sounded good but unfortunately, it does not work. For one thing, there is this perception among the Democrats that the rich are not paying their fair share of taxes. That is simply not true. The rich are being taxed more. Your tax rate increase as your income increase. You not only paying more in absolute term, you are also paying more in relative term. If you look at study done since income tax was first instituted, the percentage of rich, middle class and poor in the US has remained relatively unchanged, but the tax burden has shift continuously away from the middle class to the rich. Someone as liberal as Robert Reich (former secretary of labor Clinton) admitted this is indeed the case. If this is true, is it unjust for the rich? Democrats have argued that they can afford it, therefore it's OK. Surely they can cough up more money them us little folks. The only problem is that it never occurred to them that rich people became rich because they like money, and they get unhappy if the rest of the country keeps coming to them for more. Money being the most transient of economic resources, with one click of on the mouse, it can go from here to overseas. Treat money well, and it will stay here, treat it poorly, there are many other places that will welcome it. Money invested overseas does no create job in this country, which of course goes counter to Democrats claim of representing the interest of the majority.

Hedges
10-07-2004, 11:07 AM
Hi @wright & PugsArePeopleToo,

Thanks for considering my perspective. I see your points. Generalizations like rich people vote republican are stupid...sorry. I think you see my point I'm trying to make?

I'm just saying each person should just put aside all the bullsh*t thrown around by these two parties we have to choose from. Each person should analyze each platform and decide how it directly effects them and their family....and VOTE! Idealism, etc is a stupid waste of time.

Just so you know...I'll vote republican because I have to...it would be financially irresponsible to vote otherwise. I have oil stock...and W's conflict of interest ensures my oil stock continues to climb. However, the result is higher gas prices which effects the costs of everything else. Good for me...bad for the majority.

But I do think one day...the lower/middle class will wise up and figure out the game of politics. It's really pretty simple if you put the bullsh*t aside.


oh yea...there's no need for handouts of medicine. Most americans can afford to buy reasonably priced medications. But, the pharma lobby money flowing into both parties prevents this from happening. Again...good for investors...bad for the majority. There's a middle ground between handouts and cutting profits a bit to make things affordable.

PugArePeopleToo
10-07-2004, 12:01 PM
Hedges, it's interesting you think voting for self interest is voting against the majority. If you think about it, most Americans, meaning the majority, probably has oil and health care stocks in their 401K. They too will get a piece, albeit, a very small piece, of the action.

Just so you know, I'll vote for Kerry. I don't think he can handle the Iraqi situation better, and I don't think he can manage the domestic issues better. What I do think is that we will have checks and balances with a Democrat in the White House and Republicans in control of the Hill. Now I just have to get myself registered; my wife was so certain that I was going to vote for Bush she threw away my voter's registration card.

Hedges
10-07-2004, 12:11 PM
Hilarious...sounds like we are both voting opposite our "beliefs". I know it makes me feel better to vent my beliefs here. Thanks for listening and the mental exercise.

tennis-n-sc
10-07-2004, 12:31 PM
Sad to say, both candidates are dishonest and we are left with no true people's candidate. Maybe we need a third party but I fear it would just be three dishonest politicians running. The U.S. politicians at every level, once elected, spend the rest of their careers making sure they stay in office or seek a bigger one. So, my way out of this dileima is to somehow rationalize my vote. I think global terrorism is the biggest threat to America's national security. So, I ask myself if I were Osama bin Laden hiding in a cave in Pakistan, who would I want elected. I then cast my vote for the other candidate.

perfmode
10-07-2004, 12:31 PM
Yeah, rich people vote Republican(myth), but SUPER rich people vote Democrat because it is the fashionable/HollyWEIRD thing to do. How did sKerry(sorry to steal that one from you, David, but I like it!) get to sing on stage with Bon Jovi and all his other HollyWEIRD buddies? Because they are all RICH and think they are important if they go to fashionable liberal events. Brad & Jenn? I heard a phrase that was interesting, but not necessarily true: "When you are young, you vote Democrat if you have a heart, and when you are old you vote Republican if you have money."

A lot of those celebrities came up from nothing and their success is mainly because of poorer people supporting them through music and entertainment. On the other hand, rich people with old money don't give two hoots about anyone else.

don knot
10-07-2004, 01:09 PM
This is a nice civil debate amongst friends, I appreciate it.
One issue that really sways my vote personally is the pro-life/pro-choice issue. Bush-pro-life Kerry-Choice.
I personally believe that life begins at conception. I think this is an inportant issue while we are discussing other stances by the two candidates.

Hedges
10-07-2004, 01:43 PM
Don. The pro-life / pro-choice issue falls under #2 in my original post here (bible-related issues). I believe the republicans & democrats use this issue to get votes. But I really believe the republicans never seriously intend to take a woman's right to choose away as you'd like.

So, if I had your beliefs, I'd still be careful basing my vote solely on this issue.

David Pavlich
10-07-2004, 02:58 PM
Hedges: Don't concern yourself. Politics ends at my stringer! If I can help anyone with a stringing problem, I'm happy to do so.

As far as the rich/poor thing, I'm a capitalist pig from the first step. I believe that 99% of people make decisions that directly affect their lives...some make the right decision (education, learning a craft, etc.) and some decide that skipping out in the 10th grade is cool. I am a firm believer in taking responsibility for the choices that are made. If someone made a bad choice, why should those that made the correct choice be punished?

Sure, there are those that have no control over what fate may have wrought. However, it's a damn few.

@wright: The sKerry thing...I borrowed that from Neal Boortz. He's a talk show host out of Atlanta. Very Libertarian as am I.

David

don knot
10-07-2004, 04:00 PM
Hedges, Thanks for your help. The #1 issue with me in safety here on the homefront. That is why I will vote Bush even though I am a democrat. The Kerry record on defense and his "globalist" ways do not give me any indication that he can a. win the war on terror and b. keep us safe here.
It's that simple in my opinion.

don knot
10-07-2004, 04:00 PM
Hedges, Thanks for your help. The #1 issue with me is safety here on the homefront. That is why I will vote Bush even though I am a democrat. The Kerry record on defense and his "globalist" ways do not give me any indication that he can a. win the war on terror and b. keep us safe here.
It's that simple in my opinion.

Sacco
10-07-2004, 08:43 PM
Wait a minute here... 9/11 happened under Bush's watch, so is the question is... has he just made you safer from himself ?

He did a **** poor job defending America the first time around, so why give him another chance?

Sacco
10-07-2004, 08:50 PM
My bad, your opinion is your opinion, even if I don't agree. :oops:

Sacco
10-07-2004, 08:54 PM
Someone cut my quote off. TW and censorship rule!!


"If you can't say F**K, you can't say F**K THE GOVERNMENT"
--Lenny Bruce

Not long now, TW, and Orwell's double-bind universe will be coming around the corner to bite you in the *****.

don knot
10-08-2004, 07:06 AM
No problem Sacco, you have just as much right to express your opinion as i do. We can agree to dis-agree on this matter.

David Pavlich
10-08-2004, 09:50 AM
Someone cut my quote off. TW and censorship rule!!


"If you can't say F**K, you can't say F**K THE GOVERNMENT"
--Lenny Bruce

Not long now, TW, and Orwell's double-bind universe will be coming around the corner to bite you in the *****.

Keep in mind that this is a FREE BBS. TW is kind enough to host it and not charge you or I a penny. It is also a PRIVATE BBS, owned by TW. TW sets the rules and it is there right to enforce the rules as they see fit.

The only entity that can censor is the government. What TW does is a business decision. They calculate that you or I will do business with them despite the rules of their BBS. If you or I decide NOT to use TW for a purchase, then they missed on their calculation concerning ONE customer.

My bet is that there are very few potential customers that didn't buy here because of a BBS that is perceived as being draconian or mean.

David

Sacco
10-08-2004, 05:19 PM
I see your point, David. Pure capitalism runs the game. I can respect that to a point. But pure capitalism is a utopia like communism. It ceases to work after a fashion. But I'm sure T.W. is dynamic, and will change with need, as you imply.

And I do remember talk awhile back, by Sysop or such, that the government, Homeland Security or some collective, was going to censor the Talk Tennis Warehouse message board. If that ever happened, I don't know?

And no it's NOT only government's that censor, but individual people behind those power structures (only one form of which is government, arguably controlled by the businesses at times). Hence my Lenny Bruce's quote structured from macrocosm/microcosm to microcosm/macrocosm.

And if what you say is indeed true about the costumer-- why are so many posts with careless sexism and debasement towards women on this board allowed. I would think many women are buying from T.W., and that could be the large population being turned off. However, I think even this is the wrong way to go, but a point nevertheless.

What I think is really happening is one conservative person complains or controls, and the will of that one always pre-dominates over the unspoken many who are not offended, but have the sensibility to understand and except different viewpoints. True freedom begins with this notion, tyranny ends and means it.

Hedges
10-09-2004, 06:20 AM
There's plenty of newsgroups (non-commercial) where you can throw around cuss words and stuff. But, it makes very little sense for TW to condone that activity here.

David Pavlich
10-09-2004, 11:01 AM
Sacco: I agree with your assertion concerning foul language. If I were this board's administrator, I would warn a poster once to clean it up. Two strike and it's "hasta la vista, baby". Draconian? Perhaps, but the administrator sets the rules. If you or I or Joe Schmuck disagree with the board's rules, then start your own or go somewhere else.

I don't get the need for foul language on this board. I guess it's a way some male participants to show that they are producing testosterone.

Pure capitalism isn't possible...I agree with that. However, there comes a point that government creates conditions that squeeze capitalism so tight that it becomes something other than capitalism. The big cludgeon out there is the tax code. It needs a good throwing away. Government uses the tax code as a sort of "sword of Damacles" to either pay favor or to punish...neither of which is good. It distorts the playing field.

Sorry about the pontificating. I get carried away when it comes to the tax codes. We need them eliminated and install a retail sales tax. But that's a whole other thread.

David

thejerk
10-09-2004, 06:15 PM
If Atlas would just shrug off the Little Red Book, we'd all be better off. I think that public shools are failing. Why do so many people coming out of schools think that intent is as good as results? Do you feel good just because you voted to help somebody? How about helping with your own money? Why is it free people want to give up control? I suppose it's ok with all the socialists that only the rich will be able to afford a private doctor after free medical care takes over.

My biggest proof that public schools are failing: People no- longer recognize that you get what you pay for.

thejerk
10-09-2004, 07:20 PM
I guess that if the Little Red Book were a tick that would explain it. Just like a parasite, it is full of blood and sucks the life out of infected bodies.

Sacco
10-11-2004, 07:17 PM
thejerk,

Funny stuff at times.

The little Red Book in that it is "forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old" is indeed like a Tick, but a Tick to suck the f*ck out of the 'employing class'. :lol:

I never liked Zeus and his Homeboy Gang anyway, too much authoritarianism, but Atlas can't just 'shrug off' Little Red, he's still learning to balance (since he has lime disease now) and he might just want to eat his dear Little Red in the Hood if he needs his own Homeboy Gang to F*CK the system sideways. :twisted: