Edwards is a PERFECT VP for Kerry!!

[sq764]

..he's a bumbling idiot too!!

Good Lord..

"Mr Edwards, without mentioning John Kerry, please explain the difference between you and VP Cheney"

"Well, John Kerry, ... ooops, sorry"

"Ok, what I meant to say was John Kerry.. woops, let me try again"

[chickenhead]

so who "won" this debate guys?

I just heard "Yappity yap Yappity GAY DAUGHTER yap yap blah blah blah TRIAL LAWYER yippity yip yip yippity HALLIBURTON etc etc"

[Tom]

Chenney - if he were running, I would vote for him. I would trust him with my life. He is an honorable, decent person trying his best to serve his country.

Edwards - If he enetered the same room I was in, I would shift my wallet from my back pocket to my front pocket.
Remeber the old Drive in movie daysm when they showed 6 cartoons before the movie started? Even a 10 year old would start to get tired of cartoons by number 5. I was tired of Edwards about 9:30 tonight. He came off as uninformed, lost, out of place, whinney, immature, and unabvle to concentrate on any topic for more than a few seconds. Like he has ADD. And he is obviously the STRONGER half of the ticket. :p

[sq764]

Is it me or had Edwards watched too many Kennedy speeches??

He has the accent down, and that;s about it..

He actually sounds more like Mayor Joe Quimby than Kennedy..

[JustMissed]

Man, I see now why the DNC tapped Kerry instead of Edwards.

If I had to listen to that voice for four years I would volunteer to go to Iraq. Holy Cow.

I see why he won so many court cases. The jurors probably said let's give them anything-just get this trial over and make that voice stop.hehehe

JM

[Steve 'StatMan']

I thought Cheney made Edwards look like a little boy. I'm a bit surprised the inital polls aren't as heavy in Cheney's favor than I've seen so far, but I'm sure the entrenched sides saw what they wanted to see.

Cheney presided over the Senate for almost 4 years, and this is the first time he's met Sen. Edwards! Made Edwards look like a young teen/college student who's been cutting classes! :D

[ElKabong]

How does someone pronounce the words "hope" and "home" like Edwards does?? Your mouth would convulse in cramps trying to say "hoouuuuwwooop" (hope).

Gomer Pyle had a better handle of the language and pronunciations than Edwards. Makes ya wonder just how ignorant a jury had to be in order to be swayed by that guy :confused:

[Secretariat]

You guys must be living in fantasy land.

I'm not much on polls, but I just saw on the MSNBC Hardball site that Edwards won the debate 67% to 33%. Your favorite network CBS also had Edwards the winner when polling independent voters.

I can't beleive you think Cheney won after his outright lie (which Bill Scheinder and Jow Scarbourgh called him out for afterwards about the Al-Queda-Hussein-911 link. They had him on tape on Meet the Press saying it, and he lies directly to the american people tonight saying he never said it.

Thought Edwards exposed Cheney's voting record extremely well, and tottlay discredited Cheny's own complaints about Kerry since Cheny recommended cutting the very systems he was chastizing Kerry for voting against. Unbelievable. Then cheney wants to take credit for no Child Left Behind after voting to get rid of the Department of Education. And I noticed Cheney avoided the Bremer issue and Rumsfeld's quote today. And he was extremely weak on domestic issues.

But to be fair, this debate revealed one thing to me...Dick Cheney "is the current president" of the United States. He's the puppett master for the befuddled jello we saw perform last Thursday.

[ElKabong]

...and an ABC poll taken showed Cheney beat johnedwards 45-37/ (18% undecided).

Cheney ripped edwards for his non existant senate record. I haven't seen you (sec) or any of your friends go on and on about his voting record. Any of the programs he's pushed thru or authored, any earth moving actions he's done to deserve a swim thru the white hse.

No wonder...>>IT DOESN'T EXIST..... Like Kerry, like Edwards.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I'm not much on polls, but I just saw on the MSNBC Hardball site that Edwards won the debate 67% to 33%.

If you're not much on polls, then the MSNBC Hardball website poll shouldn't even be on your radar. It doesn't even qualify as anywhere near a scientific poll, specifically because it can be easily manipulated, as it was last Thursday night, when it had Kerry winning 70-30 over Bush.

If we are to believe the MSNBC Hardball website, Kerry kicked Bush's butt by the same amount as Edwards kicked Cheney's butt???

Fantasy Land Indeed!

[JustRalph]

give me ten minutes and some basic vb magic and I can change that msnbc poll for you...............

I did it once on a poll on the local NBC affiliate. I was talking with their web person when I did it. Swung the poll from 90-10 one way to the complete opposite about an hour later. He actually thought it was funny. He got the poll from MSNBC's site and couldn't believe how easy it was to manipulate. He changed it on their local site. But the MSNBC polling stuff is still the same. although it resides on mulit servers..........and is harder to change, you could screw up the numbers pretty easy. If you look hard enough on the net you will find some people who are into hacking these polls and having fun with it. they are far from accurate.

[sq764]

I thought this was indicative of a seasoned politician playing an inexperienced little boy: (Cheney on whether Kerry would be a worthy president)

"And with respect to this particular operation, we've seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed -- body armor, spare parts, ammunition -- they voted against it.

I couldn't figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops.

Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to al Qaeda?"

[hcap]

My opinion is that Edwards won on substance, but sort of wilted in the DARK presence of the real puppet master.
Overall I would give it slightly to Edwards.

Online polls may not mean much, but after Kerry won the first debate on the online polls, he actually solidified his postion and tied the race. Let's see what happens in afew days. Meanwhile:

Swing State
From Ohio
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/
Who do you feel performed better in the Vice Presidential debate?
Vice President Dick Cheney
1147 votes (2%)
Senator John Edwards
51262 votes (98%)

Update: Houston Chronicle (Bush country):
10:40 pm, 6025 votes
Vice President Dick Cheney: 11%
Sen. John Edwards: 88%
It was a draw: 1%
Total Votes: 6025Update: Houston Chronicle (Bush country):
10:40 pm, 6025 votes

Who won Tuesday night's vice presidential debate?-faux news

a. Vice President Cheney
(47%)
102,381

b. Senator Edwards
(51%)
109,810

216,379 total votes

Wall Street Journal!!!!
http://discussions.wsj.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=wsjvoices&tid=3301&vote=2&submit=Vote

Who prevailed in the vice-presidential debate?
Dick Cheney
1151 votes (9%)

John Edwards
10761 votes (88%)

it was a tie.
281 votes (2%)
12193 people have voted so far



MNSBC
Who won the debate? * 1031494 responses
VP Dick Cheney
35%
Sen. John Edwards
65%


And if you wanna see more evidence, go to
http://www.politicalstrategy.org/

A bit lopsided don't ya think?

[OTM Al]

Cheney's crack that it was the first time he ever met Edwards may come back and bite him in the rear considering there are 3 documented times they appeared together, including a breakfast in which Cheney mentioned him by name and sat next to him. I really wonder how much any of these guys show up for anyway...

[sq764]

I think this is one of the burdens that Kerry has put on himself and will not go away.. To focus on bashing Bush on lack of ally support, then going and insulting our allies is just idiotic. Kerry has done more to alienate allies in one month than Bush has done in 4 years..


CHENEY: Well, Gwen, it's hard to know where to start; there are so many inaccuracies there.
The fact of the matter is the troops wouldn't have what they have today if you guys had had your way.
You talk about internationalizing the effort. They don't have a plan. Basically, it's an echo.

You made the comment that the Gulf War coalition in '91 was far stronger than this. No. We had 34 countries then; we've got 30 today. We've got troops beside us.

It's hard, after John Kerry referred to our allies as a coalition of the coerced and the bribed, to go out and persuade people to send troops and to participate in this process.
You end up with a situation in which -- talk about demeaning. In effect, you demean the sacrifice of our allies when you say it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and oh, by the way, send troops. Makes no sense at all. It's totally inconsistent. There isn't a plan there.

Our most important ally in the war on terror, in Iraq specifically, is Prime Minister Allawi. He came recently and addressed a joint session of Congress that I presided over with the speaker of the House.

And John Kerry rushed out immediately after his speech was over with, where he came and he thanked America for our contributions and our sacrifice and pledged to hold those elections in January, went out and demeaned him, criticized him, challenged his credibility.

That is not the way to win friends and allies. You're never going to add to the coalition with that kind of attitude.

[hcap]

The issue here is really substance. Unlike the first debate where Kerry won on both substance and style against flighsuitboy, I would give Cheney a close score on style.
At least he appeared knowledgable.
He is gonna be called many points, like the nonsense just posted by sq764 You made the comment that the Gulf War coalition in '91 was far stronger than this. No. We had 34 countries then; we've got 30 today. We've got troops beside us. Coalition is a joke. If sq beleves this crap, he is a superiour candidate for busk/cheney hand puppet school.

Coalition of the Willing? Angola, Costa Rica, Uganda, Solomon Islands, Eritrea, Honduras, Rwanda, Panama, Iceland, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and the all powerful Palau. The major allies that are missing that picked up much of the costs of the first gulf war, include France, Germany, Canada

Only a few of these countries are providing any major military presence in the Gulf, notably Britain and Australia. Poland is pulling out, Spain already has.

The countries that are not on - include all of the Arab states, including those countries where US troops are massing for an invasion, like Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain.

The first gulf war included.. Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait,Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom. And the US picked up a much smaller percent of the total costs, in blood and treasure. And we did not alieniate a good portion of thw world.

Now a much worse lie...

After Cheney bsing about Abu Musab Zarqawi, and how they were right about Saddam being connected to al-Qaida yada,yada yada, consider this.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100549/

"NBC News broadcast by Jim Miklaszewski on March 2. Apparently, Bush had three opportunities, long before the war, to destroy a terrorist camp in northern Iraq run by Abu Musab Zarqawi, the al-Qaida associate who recently cut off the head of Nicholas Berg. But the White House decided not to carry out the attack because, as the story puts it:

The administration feared [that] destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The implications of this are more shocking, in their way, than the news from Abu Ghraib. Bush promoted the invasion of Iraq as a vital battle in the war on terrorism, a continuation of our response to 9/11. Here was a chance to wipe out a high-ranking terrorist. And Bush didn't take advantage of it because doing so might also wipe out a rationale for invasion.

And

...But the problem, from Bush's perspective, was that this was the only tangible evidence of terrorists in Iraq. Colin Powell even showed the location of the camp on a map during his famous Feb. 5 briefing at the U.N. Security Council. The camp was in an area of Iraq that Saddam didn't control. But never mind, it was something. To wipe it out ahead of time might lead some people—in Congress, the United Nations, and the American public—to conclude that Saddam's links to terrorists were finished, that maybe the war wasn't necessary. So Bush let it be."

[Lefty]

Cheney pointed out the inconsistencies of the Edwards/Kerry team well and of course Edwards as did Kerry got to second guess the war. It's the easiest thing in the world to 2nd guess wars as they always do not go exactly as planned.
Bush just needs to keep plugging away at Kerry and Edwards' voting records and he will win.
Hey, saw the POW Wives ads last night and that's gonna really hurt Kerry as well.

[sq764]

Hcap, I see, just like Sec and LJB, you have selective reading..

You fail to address the part I was referencing:


"It's hard, after John Kerry referred to our allies as a coalition of the coerced and the bribed, to go out and persuade people to send troops and to participate in this process.

You end up with a situation in which -- talk about demeaning. In effect, you demean the sacrifice of our allies when you say it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and oh, by the way, send troops. Makes no sense at all. It's totally inconsistent. There isn't a plan there.

Our most important ally in the war on terror, in Iraq specifically, is Prime Minister Allawi. He came recently and addressed a joint session of Congress that I presided over with the speaker of the House.

And John Kerry rushed out immediately after his speech was over with, where he came and he thanked America for our contributions and our sacrifice and pledged to hold those elections in January, went out and demeaned him, criticized him, challenged his credibility.

That is not the way to win friends and allies. You're never going to add to the coalition with that kind of attitude.

[hcap]

The title of this thread is "Edwards is a PERFECT VP for Kerry!!"

Should actually be "Bush is a PERFECT VP for Cheney!"
As in fact he really is.

Sq, did you read the one about how bushs' speechwriters "contributed" to scripting Allawis speech? Or how most of the Iraqis' view Allawi as a US prop? Or how the Polish Prime Minister accused bush of lying about the WMDs, and now Poland is pulling out? What kind of message does that send to our allies? But hey it don't matter. The people of each allie, have already sent the message to their mislead leaders.

That the original reasons, (trust us we KNOW), WMDs, and , Saddam=Osama=terrorists, was just a ruse to lasso nations, who after 911 were all in our court, to invade a third world country under false pretenses. Yeah I know Saddam was a bad guy, but as Kerry/Edwards say The wrong war at the wrong time.

[sq764]

Again, you are not answering the whole point...

How can you, as a candidate, bombard the president with comments of betrayal of allies, pushing they away, needing to strengthen the bonds.. Then insulting those same allies??

How does this look to Americans? You have issue with the pres on ally support then you do the exact same thing you accuse him of doing??

I must ask, would Kerry's actions pass 'the global test'??

[Lefty]

hcap, Then why did both men vote for the war? You just can't dismiss that little FACT!

[sq764]

And little boy Edwards can pound Haliburton into the ground until his face is blue, but the reality is that congressional auditors found that the contract was completely legal, based in part that Haliburton was the only company capable of doing much of the work.

Kinda seems like a dead issue at this point, but I hope they keep harping on dead issues, it's funny to watch.

[Lefty]

SQ, I cght that too. Everytime he was stuck he went back to Haliburton. Haliburton also had contracts under the Clinton ADM. too.

[kenwoodallpromos]

The media said tie, which means Cheney won.
The online polls are obviously unreal as to scientific.
Edwards was allowed to have the final word on questions 2/3 of the time, including 1 where the moderater totally screwed up. It was a PBS setup against the incumbents.
Edwards violated the rules several times, including blatantly interrupting Cheney. Edwards had little respect for the office he was a candidate for.
Edwards looked like Bush did last time; facial gestures and running out of new things to say. Edwards also got all flustered in the reaction shots a couple of times, not good for a VP.
________--
I liked Edwards' positive outlook and bearing- but now he is worthless on both accounts; I credit this solely to Kerry's influence.
And have you noticed Teresa has disappeared after to much trashmouthing?

[hcap]

Sq, find me the article/website where Kerry or Edwards actually dissed our allies. Find the comments, please in context.

Lefty, I already said I wasn't in favour of the war from day 1.
From an ideological point of view, I am not overjoyed. From a practical view, considering politicians must lie, I am not too unhappy. Kerry may have felt in his heart of hearts he should not have voted for the authorization, I have no way of knowing. What I do know is that he had the same conditions for going to actual war when he first voted, 'till recently.

I guess nuance is a dirty word, and anything other than black or white knee-jerking reactions are more your style. Conditional reasoning is not lost art among some literate minds. You know there always exceptions in complicated problems. And many chains of possibilties. Manicheistic thought ain't cutting it. Cowboys don't always wear white hats, unlike hopalong.

In fact some cowboys wear fake clothes, or NO clothes at all. Particularly cowboy emperors

[sq764]

You really have a blind ear to stupid things that he says, don't you.. Hope these are in context for you enough..


Last year, during the early stages of the Democratic primary, Senator Kerry told supporters that the more than 30 nations in the international operation to remove Saddam Hussein represented a "trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted."


"When they talk about a coalition--that's the phoniest thing I ever heard," Kerry said at a rally in Pennsylvania. "You've got 500 troops here, 500 troops there, and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties, and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war."


http://hundredpercenter.blogspot.com/2004/10/president-of-poland-calls-kerry.html

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by ElKabong
...and an ABC poll taken showed Cheney beat johnedwards 45-37/ (18% undecided).

Cheney ripped edwards for his non existant senate record. I haven't seen you (sec) or any of your friends go on and on about his voting record. Any of the programs he's pushed thru or authored, any earth moving actions he's done to deserve a swim thru the white hse.

No wonder...>>IT DOESN'T EXIST..... Like Kerry, like Edwards.

Boy, this is a beaut. The VP of a man who has been AWOL from the White House more than any President in the history of the United States criticizing Edwards record? A President who has been on vacation more than he's been working...I guess its ok for Bush to be on the campaign trail rather than the White House, but not edwards or Kerry huh? Talk about the pot calling the kettle...

But what I really liked was one more of Cheney's caught and exposed lies again (beside his Husseinn-911 link one which was shown on Meet the Press and he denied last night). He stated that when he walked on the stage tonight this was the first time he had met John Edwards, yet the networks today are showing pictures of Cheny and Edwards over and over together. Even some sitting right beside each other together at some events talking. Talk about lies. Cheney is one of the biggest on record. Unfortunately, he didn't know the cameras were watching and would expose his continual lies.

You're right PA. I don't care about polls. They are meaningless, but when people here say Cheney won the debate, those polls are showing at least that over 2,000,000 people posting on MSNBC disagreed with that assertion strongly, not a random sampling of 1000 people. maybe you're right. Maybe more Dems are posting on MSNBC. I don't know. but at least 2,000,000 people apparently are leaning towards the Kerry-Edwards ticket rather than the Cheney-Chump one.

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by Secretariat

But what I really liked was one more of Cheney's caught and exposed lies again (beside his Husseinn-911 link one which was shown on Meet the Press and he denied last night). He stated that when he walked on the stage tonight this was the first time he had met John Edwards, yet the networks today are showing pictures of Cheny and Edwards over and over together. Even some sitting right beside each other together at some events talking. Talk about lies. Cheney is one of the biggest on record. Unfortunately, he didn't know the cameras were watching and would expose his continual lies.

.

Sec,

You can be in someones presence w/o "meeting" them. Edwards was a NOTHING of a senator, and that's what his record indicates, it appears that he had no substantive discussions with Cheney.

Makes sense to me. Edwards has nothing to offer. Your post is proof of it. You offered NOTHING to back up Edwards record in the senate.

[delayjf]

That the original reasons, (trust us we KNOW), WMDs, and , Saddam=Osama=terrorists, was just a ruse to lasso nations, who after 911 were all in our court, to invade a third world country under false pretenses.

I know I've said this before but some here still don't want to face the truth of these "coalitions"

So, with the whole world squarely in our court, were was the whole world when we the US (all by our lonesome) invaded Afganistan:confused:

Take a look at the Order of Battle for Desert Storm, the troops that actually took part in the liberation of Kwait and the invasion of Iraq. Yes all those countries in the coalition contributed some even sent troops, France sent hundreds of tanks, BUT, and I say again THEY DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY MAJOR COMBAT ACTIONS. Other than few flight sorties against a defenseless Iraq

Keep in mind the very coalition Kerry claims he would seek before taking military action , KERRY VOTED AGAINST in 1991.
I don't know how you can support a candidate that through his own voting record as a Senator has proven he doesn't have the guts to defend this country. Looks to me like any courage he had, he left on that swift boat in Vietnam.

[hcap]

Sq,

This is the original source:
http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20687439.html

Yep he said it.

See what happens when the entire statement and event is in context?

03/09/2003-- Before the war. No shots fired, no allies were on the ground yet. And he was making a larger point about how the bushies had not built a real coalition

U.S. Sen. John Kerry on Saturday accused the Bush administration of being unwilling to compromise with key allies to win their support for a potential war with Iraq

"Kerry told The Des Moines Register. "The president's diplomacy has been completely lacking."

...Kerry said during the speech at the downtown Marriott Hotel that Bush has been impatient, which has cost the U.S. support from its allies. "The greatest position of strength is by exercising the best judgement in the pursuit of diplomacy," he said, "not in some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted, but in a genuine coalition."

...But Kerry said the U.N. resolution introduced by Britain on Friday, which gives Iraq until March 17 to disarm or face war, provides too little time for the United States to win over skeptical allies. The Bush administration supports the resolution.

"It's clearly arbitrary and flies in the face of building the type of coalition you need," Kerry said.

"It didn't advance the diplomatic process and may have even set it back given the intransigence the president displayed," Kerry said

Ok, now locate a reputable newspaper or jounal backing up...

" Last year, during the early stages of the Democratic primary, Senator Kerry told supporters that the more than 30 nations in the international operation to remove Saddam Hussein represented a...

"trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted."

Other than a repeat of the first source I tracked down

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by ElKabong
Sec,

You can be in someones presence w/o "meeting" them. Edwards was a NOTHING of a senator, and that's what his record indicates, it appears that he had no substantive discussions with Cheney.

Makes sense to me. Edwards has nothing to offer. Your post is proof of it. You offered NOTHING to back up Edwards record in the senate.

Ahh...but I do have proof of Cheney's lies.

And it is interesting to look at Cheney's record as President of the Senate.

Take a peak:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=2&u=/latimests/cheneyandedwardshavemetbefore

So much for reaching across the aisle.....The Great Dividers! Cheney and Chump

not a good day for Repubs...

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=iraq

And looks like Rush lost his appeal....It's that damn liberal media again...

[sq764]

Sec, do you always use elipses when putting things in exact context??

You gotta be kidding me man..

[sq764]

And I just read this statement again, explain to me where I am supposed to find the non-insulting part??

Where does the 'bribed, coerced and extorted" part come in? Who is he saying these countries are?



"Kerry said during the speech at the downtown Marriott Hotel that Bush has been impatient, which has cost the U.S. support from its allies. "The greatest position of strength is by exercising the best judgement in the pursuit of diplomacy," he said, "not in some trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted, but in a genuine coalition."

[hcap]

Sec,

These guys just won't give up. Their fantasy land is leaking at the seams, but they still want us to beleive in the war president and darth cheney.

First Kerry wiped the smirk off junior, now ole'grimace head is slowly twisting in the wind, trying to take back a couple of fibs he didn't properly set up. A cheap shot that sort of shocked when cheney first uttered it, but like most of the bs out of this administration, falls apart rapidly, and in light of what you mentioned about bush and vacation time, seems silly

I posted the yahoo story earlier on the "A question about the debate" thread.
A couple of items from the story.

1-Although Cheney is the Senate's presiding officer, he actually sits in the chamber only on rare occasions, such as to break a tie vote and to swear in new senators.

2-He does attend the GOP senators' weekly luncheons to discuss party strategy. But only Republicans attend, and Cheney usually breezes into the building, goes to the meeting, then leaves without hobnobbing with Democrats.
In fact, Cheney was teased by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (news, bio, voting record) (D-Vt.) for only associating with Republicans when, in an encounter on the Senate floor, Cheney cursed at Leahy.



It's likely Edwards spent more time in the senate than cheney. Remember all those undisclosed locations.

Just like the WMDs story. Thanks for posting it. I guess all of our friends-in-denial, must be getting tired of a yet another NEW inspector reporting zilch. Now you may not believe in polls, but there is signicant movement in Kerry/Edwards direction. The polls are meaningful in that they show momentum.

From rasmussenreports.com. Very conservative outfit

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

"Presidential Tracking Poll: Bush-Kerry
Updated Daily by Noon Eastern

Election 2004

Presidential Ballot
Bush 47.2%
Kerry 46.9%
Other 2.1%
Not Sure 3.8%

Wednesday October 06, 2004--The race for the White House is tied once again.

The latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll shows President George W. Bush with 47% of the vote and Senator John Kerry with 47%. While the Senator has not been ahead in the Tracking Poll since August 23, recent trends show movement in his direction.

[Equineer]

I think Cheney far exceeded expectations, but he may not have impressed enough women and youths, the two focus-group classifications that have never found his personality very engaging.

He may actually be a very warm and considerate husband/father, but he evokes reactions like, "I feel sorry for his wife and daughter"... "Comes across as ill-tempered and heartless"... "Seems mean enough to sell your pony while you sleep."

Bush, on the other hand, does very well with women voters and is viewed as a likable guy by youths.

[hcap]

Sq,

03/09/2003-- Before the war. No shots fired, no allies were on the ground yet. And he was making a larger point about how the bushies had not built a real coalition
He did not jeopardize any coalition soldiers live. None were there. He was insulting the bush administration for doing a shit ass job in coalition building.

And in fact if any of the minor countries like Angola, Costa Rica, Uganda, Solomon Islands, Eritrea, Honduras, Rwanda, Panama, Iceland, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and the all powerful Palau, felt insulted they could have pulled out before anyone got hurt.

But guess what? They were bribed and coerced. And sold a bill of goods

[Secretariat]

Equineer,

I disagree. Cheney just lied.

about his own statements on Hussein-911 link, on meeting Edwards, and about Edward's attendance and voting record.

"In last night's debate, Cheney said Edwards has "one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate."

In truth, Edwards has an 84.8% voting record in the Senate. In each of his first four years, he had a perfect or near perfect record:

1999 Cast 371 out of 374 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2000 Cast 298 out of 298 votes for a 100% voting record
2001 Cast 377 out of 380 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2002 Cast 253 out of 253 votes for a 100% voting record
2003 Cast 281 out of 459 votes for a 61.2% voting record
2004 Cast 84 out of 198 votes for a 42.4% voting record
OVERALL Edwards has cast 1664 out of 1962 votes for a 84.8% voting record.

Even with the rigors of a primary and presidential 2003-2004 race he still has an 84.8 record. One more of Mr. Cheney strikes once again.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_se...

[Equineer]

Secretariat,

If this election was a quest for truth and moral dignity, none of today's candidates would be on the ballot... except maybe Nader.

[sq764]

Come on Hcap, I understand that you are just keeping with the Democratic trend by only telling half the story, but at least acknowledge the blatant lies told by Edwards last night...

Just some of the 'fibs' uttered by the babbling baron of Carolina:


- (You'd think Kerry would have told him about making this mistake again) The war was allocated $120B, not $200B… just $80 BILLION off.. but who’s counting

- Military personel actually pay a lower tax than ‘millionaires sitting by the pool’, not more.. But it was a nice try Johnny Boy

- Bush didn’t propose a bill banning gay marriage.. Wrong again Johnnie boy

- 1.6 private sector jobs were lost in the past 4 years.. wrong again

[hcap]

Wha' happened to the.....Democratic primary version of your story???

" Last year, during the early stages of the Democratic primary, Senator Kerry told supporters that the more than 30 nations in the international operation to remove Saddam Hussein represented a..."trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted."

Maybe the weakly standard? Now that's a good rag, or some fly by night wingnut blogger salivating over ann coulter photos, while trying to type with sticky fingers? It seems that may be your source just like cheneys', lying about Edwards 84.8% voting record in the Senate. Hey maybe he's got her photos in his undisclosed location, next to his defibrillator.

[sq764]

I'll just assume you acknowledge and accept Edward's lies.. Good enough for me.

[boxcar]

hcap wrote:

Sq, find me the article/website where Kerry or Edwards actually dissed our allies. Find the comments, please in context.

So, Hcap...you admit, then, that Bush Admin. does in fact actually has allies in this war? If so, why all the complaints from the Libs that we "rushed to war" and failed to build a coalition?

Also, I want to ask you...what makes you think that Kerry is going to convince France and Russia to contribute militarily to the Iraq war when both these nations prostituted themselves with Saddam Hussein and made money hand over fist when he was in power...and now will lose gazillions due to unpaid debt because he's no longer in power? Why do you think these two countries were so dead against the war from the very outset? Those political decisions had nothing to do with all the sweet business deals these two bonehead leaders had going with Saddam, right?

Oh...yeah, I know...Kerry has a "plan", eh? :D

Boxcar

[Tom]

This week,. Kerry admitted it is not likely that either France of Russia will get involved in Iraq for any reason.
IS this a new records for braking a campaign promise three weeks BEFORE the election?
Hahahaha. Kerry has a plan alright. I think it involves Peter Pan coming to the rescure!
What a miserable loser this guy is.

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Ahh...but I do have proof of Cheney's lies.

And it is interesting to look at Cheney's record as President of the Senate.

Take a peak:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=2&u=/latimests/cheneyandedwardshavemetbefore

So much for reaching across the aisle.....The Great Dividers! Cheney and Chump

not a good day for Repubs...

http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=world&cat=iraq

And looks like Rush lost his appeal....It's that damn liberal media again...


Sec,

I see you still can't post anything positive of Edwards years in the senate. Whatta shocker.

You do seem stuck on "Cheney lied". How tired of you. He can also lead, but that flies over your head. Cheney= leader.... Edwards= Ambulance chaser.

[Lefty]

"nuance" is the latest DEm buzzword for outright change of position.
LOL>

[Tom]

Sec, are you John Edwards?
I ask because you two have a very similar debating style - jump all over the place, dodge direct quesitons, spin answers, ignore the topic at hand, and generally sound like you have ADD.
When I see Edwards, I can only think of a child asking, "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

"I lied this many times tonight!"

[Tom]

Meanwhile, Cheney came across as Johnny's dad, scolding him all night long.


"You should have thought of THAT before we got started!"

[Tom]

Back on topic for this thread.
Is Edwards really the best running mate for Kerry, or is there someone better?

[Tom]

How will Edwards take the news if Kerry flip flops over to Teddy?

http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/foghorn/fogleg20.wav

[Shacopate]

I think Cheney took this one. Edwards was so "on message" that I think came off as silly a couple of times. Didn't even address the ? about " how are you and the VP different".

The thing that raised my eyebrows the most was his "backhanded compliment" about how he knows that the Cheney's love their "lesbian daughter" when Cheney didn't even bring it up.

[sq764]

that was funny..

Cheney was like "um, thanks".. "Mr Cheney do you have anything more to add?"... "No."

[boxcar]

hcap wrote:

Sq, find me the article/website where Kerry or Edwards actually dissed our allies. Find the comments, please in context.

Lefty, I already said I wasn't in favour of the war from day 1.
From an ideological point of view, I am not overjoyed. From a practical view, considering politicians must lie, I am not too unhappy.

Let' me see if I have this right, Hcap:

1. You say "politicians must lie"? I take it, then, that you meant by this that all (in the universal sense) "must lie"? Which is why you justified and rationalized Kerry's behavior with:

Kerry may have felt in his heart of hearts he should not have voted for the authorization, I have no way of knowing.

2. If lying is to all politicians what money is to the wheels of capitialism, for example, I must ask on what moral grounds do you criticize any Republican when you think he or she is lying?

3. Since you glibly dismissed Kerry's lie and so easily justified and rationaized it, cannot your personal moral standard, which you applied to Kerry, be used by those of differing political views with respect to their candidates whenever they lie? (You know..in the interest of being "fair and balanced", isn't what's good for the goosey also good for the gander?)

4. Lastly, tell us, please, why you believe "politicans must lie".


Would love to hear back from you on these things...

Boxcar

[hcap]

OOps, talk about lies

From http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/11163/2940


"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session."

--Dick Cheney


Here is a list of the Senate's Acting Presidents for every Tuesday session for 2001.

January 30 - Enzi
February 6 - Chafee
February 13 - Chafee
February 27 - Allen
March 6 - Burns
March 13 - Reid
March 20 - DeWine
March 27 - Chafee
April 3 - Smith
April 24 - Chafee
May 1 - Chafee
May 8 - Chafee
May 15 - Frist
May 22 - Chafee
June 5 - Enzi
June 12 - Byrd
June 19 - Carper
June 26 - Bayh
July 10 - Nelson
July 17 - Clinton
July 24 - Byrd
July 31 - Stabenaw
September 25 - Wellstone
October 2 - Clinton
October 9 - Clinton
October 16 - Edwards!!!!!
October 23- Byrd
October 30 - Bingaman
November 13 - Murray
November 27 - Jeffords
December 4 - Stabenaw
December 11 - Carnahan
December 18 - Nelson


http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html

2002

Tue 1/29 - Nelson
Tue 2/5 - Kohl
Tue 2/12 - Stabenow
Tue 2/26 - Landrieu
Tue 3/5 - Edwards
Tue 3/12 - Landrieu
Tue 3/19 - Miller
Tue 4/9 - Cleland
Tue 4/16 - Reed
Tue 4/23 - Wellstone
Tue 4/30 - Nelson
Tue 5/7 - Miller
Tue 5/14 - Cleland
Tue 5/21 - Nelson
Tue 6/4 - Durbin
Tue 6/11 - Corzine
Tue 6/18 - Dayton
Tue 6/25 - Landrieu
Tue 7/9 - Reed
Tue 7/16 - Corzine
Tue 7/23 - Reed
Tue 7/30 - Clinton
Tue 9/3 - Reed
Tue 9/10 - Corzine
Tue 9/17 - Reid
Tue 9/24 - Stabenow
Tue 10/1 - Miller
Tue 10/8 - Miller
Tue 10/15 - Reid
Tue 11/12 - CHENEY! -- WE HAVE A WINNER!
Tue 11/19 - Barkley (MN)

2003

Jan 7 *Cheney* WE HAVE A WINNER!
Jan 14 Stevens
Jan 22 Stevens
Jan 28 Stevens
Feb 4 Stevens
Feb 11 Stevens
Feb 25 Stevens
Mar 4 Stevens
Mar 11 Stevens
Mar 18 Stevens
Mar 25 Stevens
Apr 1 Stevens
Apr 8 Stevens
Apr 29 Stevens
May 6 Talent
May 13 Ensign
May 20 Alexander
June 3 Stevens
June 10 Stevens
June 18 Murkowski
June 24 Coleman
July 8 Stevens
July 15 Stevens
July 22 Chaffee
July 29 Stevens
Sept 2 Stevens
Sept 9 Stevens
Sept 16 Stevens
Sept 23 Stevens
Sept 30 Sununu
Oct 21 Stevens
Oct 28 Stevens
Nov 4 Stevens
Nov 11 Warner
Nov 18 Stevens
Dec 9 Stevens

2004

1/20 - Stevens
1/27 - Enzi
2/3 - Stevens
2/10 - Stevens
3/2 - Stevens
3/9 - Hagel
3/16 - Sununu
3/23 - Stevens
3/30 - Ensign
4/6 - Cornyn
4/20 - Stevens
4/27 - Chambliss
5/4 - Stevens
5/11 - Stevens
5/18 - Stevens
6/1 - Stevens
6/8 - Hutchinson
6/15 - Stevens
6/22 - Allard
7/6 - Burns
7/13 - Stevens
7/20 - Enzi
9/7 - Stevens
9/14 - Chafee
9/21 - Enzi
9/28 - Stevens
10/05 - Stevens


btw, Others have pointed out that on the six occasions when Vice President Cheney was present to cast a tie-breaking vote, Senator Edwards was present and voting on all six occasions.

[hcap]

Check by days...

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/04crpgs.html

[hcap]

The six dates on which tie-breaking votes were cast by Vice President Cheney are:

April 3, 2001 (Grassley amendment on Medicare presription drugs--limits funding to $300 billion over 10 years)
April 5, 2001 (Hutchison amendment on elimination of marriage penalty tax)
May 21, 2002
April 11, 2003
May 15, 2003
May 23, 2003

Remember these are not tuesdays when Cheney said
"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session."

...and that on all six occasions Senator Edwards voted.

I guese the preznit did better than cheney afterall.
But still .....

[cj]

So, because they were in the same place 6 times, with 100 others, or near it, and most likely they were voting on opposite sides of the issue, this means they met how?

[hcap]

"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of the Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session."

Cheney said " in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer" The obvious implication is grandmaster cheney banging the gavel and calling the senate to order as he scans which senator is present and who is awol. Turns out cheney was awol in his undisclosed location.

The vice preznit said he was president of the senate, but only in fact presided 2x, the same number that Edwards presided. Cheney presided over a grand total of 2 of 126 Tuesday sessions in the Senate.

Apparantly if he was there on tuesdays, he only met with his repub cronies as Sen Leahy said.

Not only is this lying big time about Edwards he is lying about his performance "as the president of Senate, the presiding officer". It's misleading in the same way his many comments linking the connection between Saddam and WMD's.

Adlai Stevenson said "If the Republicans promise to stop lying about us, we promise to stop telling the truth about
them

[hcap]

Speaking of tuesdays

Article from http://www.hillnews.com/issues/100202/cheney.shtm

OCTOBER 2, 2002

As Cheney takes on high profile, Democrats can’t seem to find him
By Noelle Straub and Mary Lynn F. Jones

As the Senate prepares to act on a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, Republicans say Dick Cheney has assumed an increasingly visible role on Capitol Hill.

By contrast, the Democrats report that they see little of the vice president.

Cheney, a key advisor to President Bush on foreign policy issues, has become a frequent guest at the Senate Republicans’ Tuesday policy lunches, where he briefs them and answers questions. As a former White House chief of staff, secretary of defense and member of Congress, he has acquired an unusual amount of clout among GOP senators.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by cj
So, because they were in the same place 6 times, with 100 others, or near it, and most likely they were voting on opposite sides of the issue, this means they met how?

C'mon CJ.

They have video of them sitting beside each other at a prayer meeting talking. Additionally, Edwards introduced Elizabeth Dole as the fellow Senator from NC when Cheney presdied over the swearing in.

He just lied. Lied about meeting Edwards, lied about Edwards attendance record in the Senate, lied about his own record of attendance as Hcap demonstrated above, lied about what he said about the Hussein-911 link, and lied about Iraq and WMD's as the umpteenth inspector they've appointed revealed today.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&e=3&u=/latimests/20041007/ts_latimes/iraqsillicitweaponsgonesinceearly90sciasays

Look deep in your hearts and ask yourself if Kerry said something like this, and it was revealed as an outright lie like this.., you'd be all over him. Cheney is a liar, has a profane mouth, and has collected over 41 million dollars this year as VP from benefits from Halliburton. It's in the public record. God knows what's in the private one. He's a liar. Generally, he's been a good one, up to now. The record is important because he is the current President of the United States..


Oh, and don't forget the counter-terrorism task force meeting he was supposed to head pre-911...or the special itnerest energy task force he headed with only big oil companies. This is the man you want in charge?

[hcap]

Boxcar,Let' me see if I have this right, Hcap:

1." You say "politicians must lie"? I take it, then, that you meant by this that all (in the universal sense) "must lie"? Which is why you justified and rationalized Kerry's behavior with:

Kerry may have felt in his heart of hearts he should not have voted for the authorization, I have no way of knowing.

2. If lying is to all politicians what money is to the wheels of capitialism, for example, I must ask on what moral grounds do you criticize any Republican when you think he or she is lying?

3. Since you glibly dismissed Kerry's lie and so easily justified and rationaized it, cannot your personal moral standard, which you applied to Kerry, be used by those of differing political views with respect to their candidates whenever they lie? (You know..in the interest of being "fair and balanced", isn't what's good for the goosey also good for the gander?)

4. Lastly, tell us, please, why you believe "politicans must lie".1-Politicians lie all the time.

a- In order to get elected.
b-to avoid being jailed
c-to work within the sytem itself to pass legislation.
d-to present a persona other than who they really are.

If you won't admit politicians lie, I've a bridge to sell you. In fact lying in politics is a given. The problem as I see it is their "truth to lie ratio" sorta like signal to noise ratio. The higher the signal the more truthful the politician.The higher the lie level, the worse and dangerous the politician.

In fact WE All lie. We are all guilty of that sin. A little white lie-a dark and deadly lie, it is a question of degree. Thankfully most of us and most polticians fall between the extremes, although I would suggest politics can only be played successfully and skillfully by the practioneer who lies more than most of do in our daily lives. That is the nature of the beast .

You are really suggesting that Kerry voted the way he did solely for political gain. In fact most of the repub talking points try to devalue the legitamcy of Kerry/Edwards by constantly saying this.

I got news for you Box, all canditates seek political gain. The question is, is that the only motivation.

I did not justify Kerry's behavior. I said I have no way of knowing if Kerry did lie. If he felt the authorization was wrong and voted to authorize anyway,I would accept it was purely for political gain only if he made no statements all along about the CONDITIONS under which bush should invade. He consistantly did so.

If he was just preening for the presidency, he could have taken a more hawkish stand like Lieberman. Up untill the war Kerry critized the buildup, including our malnourished coalition that bush hastily assembled. So since things are not either black or white, a judgement has to be made on the candidate overall. You know mine, I know yours

2-" If lying is to all politicians what money is to the wheels of capitialism, for example, I must ask on what moral grounds do you criticize any Republican when you think he or she is lying?"

I never made that analogy. You did. Once again nuance evades you. There are little wheels and monster wheels. Little wheels are part and parcel of the territory.

Monster wheels crushing innocents call out for condemnation

3. Since you glibly dismissed Kerry's lie and so easily justified and rationaized it, cannot your personal moral standard, which you applied to Kerry, be used by those of differing political views with respect to their candidates whenever they lie? (You know..in the interest of being "fair and balanced", isn't what's good for the goosey also good for the gander?)

See above. My answer is Little wheels vs Monster wheels

4. Lastly, tell us, please, why you believe "politicans must lie".

See 1

[ElKabong]

Originally posted by hcap


4. Lastly, tell us, please, why you believe "politicans must lie".

See 1

In Kerry's case, it's many reasons. The fact he's hiding something BIG from the public in his military records is disturbing. If he'd just sign the SF180 he'd save himself a lotta grief...unless he's hiding some really BAD sh-t.

Even the VVAW posers who were outed as liars and fakes knew Kerry was an opportunist and a fake himself, back in 1971....What he couldn't fool the posers of the VVAW with, he has done so with the likes of hcap, sec and ljb.

There's a sucker born every minute.

[Lefty]

There's a great ad out now juxtaposing all of Kerry's positions right out of his own face!

[boxcar]

It's one thing 'Cap to cynically say (as I have for example) that most politicians are corrupt -- or even that most politicians lie. But it goes way beyond cynicism once you say that politicians must lie; for once you go to that level and say that something is necessary or required, this precludes any possibility for change (in this case vis-a-vis a person's volition.) If lying is the norm (such as breathing air to live), then a politician has no choice in the matter, and if he has no choice then he cannot possibly be held accountable for his lies.

Moreover, lying is not a victimless act. Far from it. Lying violates the trust of those upon whom the lies are being perpetrated. In fact, very often a liar is worse than a thief because the lie is being perpetrated by someone we know and naturally trust and in the act of lying, the liar steals that trust -- he robs it, as it were, from his victims.

(The majority of people who have ever had their home home broken into, for example, and have been robbed of their possessions, will very likely tell you afterwards that they feel as though they've personally been violated.)

Finally, since lying is normal for all politicians, then who can say that there are degrees or kinds of deceit? Anytime anyone lies to conceal a past or even future wrong-doing, or lies to intentionally bring harm to others, or lies for personal gain, or lies to portray himself as something he's not, he's still deceiving someone in any of these scenarios. And the more one lies, the easier it becomes to lie. (In Scott Peterson, for example, we have the classic profile of a pathological liar). In fact, lying becomes addictive and the more divorced the liar becomes from reality...from the facts...from the truth, for the lie has become the truth in his mind. How do you know, for example, that Kerry just isn't a more clever liar, and that he himself isn't a pathological liar?

Boxcar

[hcap]

I am saying lying is part of politics. Spin is milder word for lying. The Dems do it, the Repubs do it and we do it trying to convince each other of the error of our ways. Spin merges with, and becomes outright lying in politics before you know it.

I agree that probably most politicians during most moments in their life may not have to lie, but as they present their official "face" to the world, spin enters into their act. The worse they are fairing in popularity, the lower the truth to lie ratio. I defy you to point to a politician that does not spin who they are, and how innocent they may be of "any wrong doing".

Does this mean that the slice of realty that is politics can eventually ween itself off of spinning and not being totally truthfull? I doubt it in any real way. Would require a 180 degree reversal in human nature. Hundreds of years of western political history alone, is full of intrique, and deception. The finer points that stand out as examples to us all, are always an individual who defies the usual, and speaks the truth while others around him still stick to a hack version of the truth.

Your right, lying is not a victimless crime. In fact as far political types go, we are the victims. But it is one thing to spin on the campaign trail with slogans and mild fibs, and another to lie and pull a 1984 deception on the people you are sworn to protect and serve.." Finally, since lying is normal for all politicians, then who can say that there are degrees or kinds of deceit? Anytime anyone lies to conceal a past or even future wrong-doing, or lies to intentionally bring harm to others, or lies for personal gain, or lies to portray himself as something he's not, he's still deceiving someone in any of these scenarios. And the more one lies, the easier it becomes to lie. (In Scott Peterson, for example, we have the classic profile of a pathological liar). In fact, lying becomes addictive and the more divorced the liar becomes from reality...from the facts...from the truth, for the lie has become the truth in his mind. How do you know, for example, that Kerry just isn't a more clever liar, and that he himself isn't a pathological liar?"Therin lies the rub. No pun intended. The duty and responsibilty of each citizen is to arm themselves with the truth as best as they can ascertain it.

And in return, how do you know bush is not a pathological clever liar.

If you remember we argued on this board before the war.
My point of view has not changed. In light of recent developments, I think you may have to admit that the war may not have been a truthfull war. And that spin is in overtime by the adminiistration

hcap

[sq764]

Hcap, I am curious.. And would be interested in a serious answer..

During this campaign, what lies (if any) do you think Kerry and Edwards have spoken to the American public?

This isn't a trick question, nor is it referencing any specific issue, just a raw question..

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
C'mon CJ.

They have video of them sitting beside each other at a prayer meeting talking.

PRAYER MEETING???? WTF?????

Are you telling me Mr. Edwards prays??? Come on. You guys rip Bush left and right for praying....and now THIS?????

Bunch of hypocrites.

[betchatoo]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
PRAYER MEETING???? WTF?????

Are you telling me Mr. Edwards prays??? Come on. You guys rip Bush left and right for praying....and now THIS?????

Bunch of hypocrites.

PA

These are posts I must have missed. Who has ripped Bush for praying?

[Lefty]

There ya go with that selective DEM memory again. Bush has been ripped all over Offtopic for his beliefs and by the media as well.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
PRAYER MEETING???? WTF?????

Are you telling me Mr. Edwards prays??? Come on. You guys rip Bush left and right for praying....and now THIS?????

Bunch of hypocrites.


and just which god is he praying to? Better question, which one is ok with late term abortion? that must be the one.............

[Equineer]

Originally posted by JustRalph
and just which god is he praying to? Better question, which one is ok with late term abortion? that must be the one............. As a self-proclaimed atheist/agnostic, why do you care what god anyone worships? If you oppose abortions, you are a rare bird among a flock of wingnuts who want to impose their religious beliefs upon everyone else.

[Lefty]

And you call us wingnuts because we blve in the rights of the unborn to have a life? And that's imposing a religious belief? Meanwhile the left has got it so a schoolgirl can have an abortion without the parents being notified. Who's imposing on whom?

[schweitz]

Originally posted by Secretariat


I can't beleive you think Cheney won after his outright lie (which Bill Scheinder and Jow Scarbourgh called him out for afterwards about the Al-Queda-Hussein-911 link. They had him on tape on Meet the Press saying it, and he lies directly to the american people tonight saying he never said it.


Sec, I heard about the playing of the Meet the Press tape---I'm guessing that they left off Russert's follow up question after Cheyney's statement:

Russert: " So the resistance in Iraq is coming from those who were responsible for 9/11?"
Cheney: " No, I was careful not to say that."

You need to really watch where you get your news info---in case you didn't know, there are newscasters that have an agenda.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Equineer
As a self-proclaimed atheist/agnostic, why do you care what god anyone worships? If you oppose abortions, you are a rare bird among a flock of wingnuts who want to impose their religious beliefs upon everyone else.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Edwards saying he is a man of prayer etc. I don't care what god he worships......... but I haven't heard him say he is anything else but a Christian.....which illustrates the hypocrisy........I am agnostic. But 8 mth old babies are viable humans..........end of story. Even us Wingnut Agnostic atheists can see that..............

[Lefty]

Now on to the important lies that Cheney called Edwards on. Edwards said we had 90% of the casualties. LIE! Edwards said the war cost 200 billion. LIE! YOu guys don't worry about the real substance of a debate do you?

[Tom]

Two sentences in a row is way past the attention span of most libs. At least this one. He just likes to call people liars for no reson. And Shit Boat Vets. Real classy guy, this one. I suspect he is one of the DNC's hottest prospects for future bad governement.

And what is the difference between late term abortion and murder?

About a week.

[Equineer]

Originally posted by Lefty
And you call us wingnuts because we blve in the rights of the unborn to have a life? And that's imposing a religious belief? Meanwhile the left has got it so a schoolgirl can have an abortion without the parents being notified. Who's imposing on whom? No, Lefty, anyone can "believe" as they choose... they become a wingnut only when they try to impose beliefs founded on their religious dogma upon others who believe otherwise.

Other than the abortion issue, a secular consenus that life and its consequences begin at birth pervades our culture and economic/legal systems.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Equineer
Other than the abortion issue, a secular consenus that life and its consequences begin at birth pervades our culture and economic/legal systems.

That is rich! Then I suppose those laws wherein a pregnant women is killed is considered two murders are just hearsay? They don't really exist in Legal "systems" Please enlighten me where our economic systems recognize life beginning at "Birth" ?

Laci's Law as an example. How in the hell does Kerry and the like play the "good catholic" role and yet he votes against Lacie's Law and says he is pro abortion. You scream secularism when it fits your agenda. I won't get into an abortion debate here. I am against. Not for religious grounds........but on common sense grounds. I don't think we should be banning the morning after pill, but anything after that is probably some form of murder up until a viable baby can be delivered. Then I am damn sure it is murder. On common sense grounds alone.

See below:

John Kerry voted against Laci Peterson Law (Laci's Law - Bill)

Kerry has missed two-thirds of Senate votes this year but found time to travel back to D.C. and voted against the Laci Peterson bill.

The Washington Post reports:

"Kerry opposed the so-called Laci Peterson law--named for the pregnant California woman killed in 2002--saying it would impact a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. The bill, signed into law by President Bush, exempted abortions from prosecution. Kerry says he voted for a Democratic amendment that would have increased penalties for attacks on pregnant women--including murder charges if the fetus is killed--without defining an "unborn child." While Bush communications director Nicole Devenish said the Peterson law had "broad bipartisan support," 35 of 48 Democratic senators voted against the measure; all but two Republicans supported it."

Equine, tell me you could look this woman in the eye

http://john-kerry.tonyspencer.com/images/laci-peterson.jpg

3 days before her delivery date and tell her that if she is killed it would only count as one death/murder. This was a vibrant women who like many others married and became the victim of a scumbag husband. She was hours from your definition of motherhood. The scumbag took her life and the baby's. You can't honestly think that her baby doesn't count, in our legal system or morally? How in the hell economics comes into the picture, I don't know. There is such a thing as absolute right and wrong and it is defined by common sense. You obviously are a lucid intelligent individual. How in the hell you can ignore this fact is beyond me? Look inside yourself. It is easy as hell to sit behind that keyboard and spout this crap. But these are real people and real issues that can effect many people. You can't possibly feel at ease with your position.........can you?

[Lefty]

EQ, and science says life begins at conception. Everyone who was ever born was a fetus. Go figure!

[Equineer]

JustRalph,

The Laci Law... the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, makes it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman.

The bill only applies during commission of federal crimes, such as a terrorist attack or drug-related shooting, and only when it is being committed against the pregnant mother.

California was already one of 29 states that had similar legislation. However, all such laws are premised upon an unlawful assault against, or a crime victimizing, a pregnant women.

What does this have to do with voluntary abortions?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Equineer
What does this have to do with voluntary abortions?
I was addressing your other quote..........

Originally posted by Equineer
Other than the abortion issue, a secular consenus that life and its consequences begin at birth pervades our culture and economic/legal systems.

I was pointing out how wrong your above quote was. Never mind. You don't give a damn..........you're just trolling..........

[Equineer]

JustRalph,

Let me recommend a thoughtful discussion of the how Laci's unborn child became a pawn in the abortion debate.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-04-29-oplede_x.htm

Anti-abortion zealots have actually inhibited the passage of sensible fetus protection laws in many states.

Where fetus protection laws have been overturned by the courts, they failed to define the criminal offense as an extension of a crime against a pregnant victim.

It is also noteworthy that our current federal administration only funds stem cell research on cells obtained from aborted fetuses. No funding is provided for embryonic cell research, which is what the scientific community has consistently recommended.

[ljb]

The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church?s social doctrine does not exhaust one?s responsibility toward the common good? (?Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life,? Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, November 24, 2002 and approved by the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II).

The Catholic Church teaches that all life is sacred. A candidate for office must understand that the Church stands against any policy or course of action which diminishes life, dignity or the rights of the human person: abortion, capital punishment, war, scandalous poverty, denial of healthcare, mistreatment of immigrants and racism, to name but a few.

[Equineer]

JustRalph,

And not to forget your other assertion... among the variety of ways that the consequences of "life" are recognized by our economic and legal systems, the onus is really on your doorstep to show how unborn fetuses have been considered equal in status to postpartum infants.

[ljb]

Just so this doesn't get too serious here is a funny video.
http://www.loupix.tv/

[hcap]

Ok, WMD inspector number one...David Kay

Bush Administration in Denial About Lack of Iraq WMD: Kay

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1007-07.htm

"The White House has insisted Saddam was a threat to the United States and had weapons of mass destruction capability, but Kay told NBC television: "All I can say is 'denial' is not just a river in Egypt."

"The report is scary enough without misrepresenting what it says," he added.

Iraq "was not an imminent and growing threat because of its own weapons of mass destruction," he added.

Bush said Wednesday there was a risk that Iraq could have transferred weapons to terrorist groups.

But Kay told CNN television "Right now we have a lot of people who are desperate to justify the Bush administration's decision to go to war with Iraq. "

"He had a lot of intent. He didn't have capabilities. Intent without capabilities is not an imminent threat."

[hcap]

Don't look good for the neocons. When you add up the latest revelations and backtracking by members and ex members of this administration about the war, you may come to the conclusion that the ship is sinking, and the rats are looking for a lifeboat. I think as the situation worsens in Iraq, more insiders will be disavowing their connection to the fiasco.

As David Kay said "All I can say is 'denial' is not just a river in Egypt.

1-Bush's Case for War Crumbles
by Jim Lobe

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=3723

2- WMD Myth Meant to Deter Iran
by Juan Cole

http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?articleid=3728

3- Season of Cynicism

http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=3736

[Lefty]

lbj, we're talking abortion, the killing of babies and you say just so we don't get too serious?
EQ, anti-abortion zealots? The people trying to protect life are aealots? Meanwhile the abortionists demand abortions no matter what and don't even want the parents of an underage girl to have a say or even be notified beforehand. A father of an unborn child also has no say even though he participated in the conception. And you have the ^&*&*$ NERVE to call us zealots?

[Lefty]

hcap,
I'm sick and tired of responsing to your same old tired arguments
about wmd's and responding with my same cogent logical argument that the intelligence of the WORLD said he haddem, Kerry said he haddem, so just reread my former posts until you get it. May take you forever but try, won't you?

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
PRAYER MEETING???? WTF?????

Are you telling me Mr. Edwards prays??? Come on. You guys rip Bush left and right for praying....and now THIS?????

Bunch of hypocrites.

Pa,

Uh..who said anything about praying....Cheney claimed they had never met...yet there is video of Cheney and Edwards at a prayer meeting. I guess Edwards prays too.

The issue is Cheny lied about them meeting previously. That's it. In that regard he is certainly a liar.

[Lefty]

Cheney was making the point that Edwards missed a zillion Senate votes. I thght you guys were supposed to be good at "NUANCE"

[chickenhead]

Originally posted by Lefty
Cheney was making the point that Edwards missed a zillion Senate votes. I thght you guys were supposed to be good at "NUANCE"

Don't you feel just a little silly defending Cheney on this point...his statements about him presiding over the Senate and Edwards having a poor attendance record are just basically total BS....yet here you are cheering him on. It's kind of sad...

[chickenhead]

Originally posted by Lefty
Now on to the important lies that Cheney called Edwards on. Edwards said we had 90% of the casualties. LIE! Edwards said the war cost 200 billion. LIE!

Actually the 90% point was about as far from as lie as you can get, not only is it factually true...it wasn't even misrepresented by Edwards, the figure was exactly what he said it was.

The $200 Billion IS both a lie and a misrepresentation....the way Edwards and Kerry talk about it, they are intending you to think that this is how much we have actually spent already (even though they don't come out and say that exactly)....and becasue the monies they count for next year include monies for things other than Iraq...so they basically are misrepresenting something that they are also actually lying about.

The kicker is I have no idea why they bother to lie, pathological maybe....does $200 billion really sound that much worse than $120 billion?

[hcap]

Lefty,

Look, I have argued that the Un inspectors were not allowed to complete their job as did the majority of the people and countries of the world. Kerry insisted that we invade only as a last resort. I previously posted his rather consistant statements.

Where you make the usual mistake in logic is to claim the whole world was in agreement that in fact Saddam had WMDs, and therefore all the world stood behind the bush timetable. A case could be made that the whole world was NOT in agreement on the weapon" stockpile", but for the sake of argument, let's say they were. The problem is most definitely BUSHS' TIMETABLE. The majority of the people and countries of the world, DID NOT agree.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/7/155320/628

"Bush invaded Iraq when he did because he realized his case for war was about to fall apart. The UN resolution Mr. Bush originally said he wanted to enforce called for Saddam to disarm and to submit to inspections to verify that he had disarmed. Resolution--1441

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf

Once Saddam submitted to inspections, the onus fell on Bush to either prove that Saddam had not disarmed or to step back and allow the inspections to continue. In what was perhaps an honest effort to show that Saddam had not disarmed, the Bush administration relayed intelligence (much of it from questionable sources) to the weapons inspectors. Not even one significant piece of this intelligence turned out to be true. NOTHING significant. Nada. Zip. Zilch. A big ZERO. Verification of this from

February 2003---

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage
Feb. 20, 2003
Inspectors Blast U.S. Tips
So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." A month earlier serious questions were already being raised about the aluminum tubes the Bush administration insisted were for building nuclear weapons by The NY Times.

Bush was failing to make his case. As weapons inspectors traveled the length and breadth of Iraq and continued to find no confirmation of WMDs

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/17/iraq/main544280.shtml

The case became weaker with each passing day. Not happy with the options left to him (prove your case or step back and let the inspections continue), Bush decided to cheat the system. He decided to muddy the water by brazenly claiming (in spite of the mounting evidence) that it was obvious Saddam had not disarmed and to quickly invade before the world had time to think about it and call him on the deception.

Up until the day we invaded we had Saddam where he needed to be. There was international support for sanctions and weapons inspectors were indeed making it impossible for Saddam to restart a WMD program. What we needed from Mr. Bush (to keep Saddam under control) was patience and vigilance. Instead we got impatience and a form of vigilanteism. And due to Mr. Bush's bad decisions we are now less safe not more so.

[Tom]

Originally posted by Lefty
EQ, and science says life begins at conception. Everyone who was ever born was a fetus. Go figure!

You dare compare scinece to political convenience? Don't you know facts are made to be flexible so that they can used to justify your failures? :rolleyes:

Just what would liberals do if facts actually had to be true????:p

[Lefty]

chick, yeah, what the hell is 80 billion dollars. For awhile I thght we were talking about REAL dough. Forgive me.
hacap, you're right too. The inspectors were'nt allowed to do their jobs. By SADDAM! He had 12 yrs to comply and he broke 17 resolutions. How long do you guys want to talk.? Clinton talked and talked to N. Korea and they lied to him. His liberal mindset didn't allow for the fact that our enemies will lie. He talked and talked to Arafat and Arafat lied to him. Bush knew when to act and did. That's a leader!

[chickenhead]

I was agreeing with you Lefty....they continue even tonight to lie about the $200 billion...

[sq764]

Kerry also continues to lie about Shinseki being forced out for comments he made about the war.

That was proved wrong in the last debate, as the comments were said after he retired..

You would think Kerry's people would have filled him in on that..

[Lefty]

chick, oops. You disagreed on my first point so was blinded to the 2nd I guess.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
Pa,

Uh..who said anything about praying....Cheney claimed they had never met...yet there is video of Cheney and Edwards at a prayer meeting. I guess Edwards prays too.

The issue is Cheny lied about them meeting previously. That's it. In that regard he is certainly a liar.

I'm expanding the argument arena. You should know something about that.

How about addressing the hypocrisy? I remember a time when Presidents were routinely shown leaving church, with a Bible in their hand (a time not so long ago, as in PRESIDENT CLINTON, the hypocritical adulterer)

Today, being religious is somehow a liability, because President Bush is a religious man. Sometimes the whole thing makes me absolutely sick, to think how twisted this world has become in the name of revenge and winning.

So, when I recognize a bit of hypocrisy in Mr. Edwards attending a prayer meeting, you'll forgive me while I take pause, won't you?

[boxcar]

Equineer wrote:

No, Lefty, anyone can "believe" as they choose... they become a wingnut only when they try to impose beliefs founded on their religious dogma upon others who believe otherwise.

You dodged Lefty's question, sir. What about the godless Secular Humanists who impose their beliefs on Christians, for example, who believe otherwise on issues? Surely you aren't naieve enough to believe that only "religious" people are dogmatic, do you? If you do, you're without a clue! Everyone worships or bows the knee or pays allegiance to someone. Everyone who is mentally competent has a World View framework from which they operate in order to make all kinds of decisions, both large and small -- amoral and moral. True Christians, for example, worship the God who has revealed himself in the bible. On the other hand, Secular Humanists owe allegiance to no one but themselves. They are at the center of their own subjective little universe. For your info, the name of the god they worship is Self.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

Boxcar, you said it better than I ever could.

[Equineer]

Boxcar,

Fortunately, there is no evidence that secular humanists are advocating a constitutional amendment or legislation to make abortions mandatory.

Neither have I seen any news reports of secular humanists assassinating doctors or bombing hospital maternity wards.

[boxcar]

hcap wrote:

I am saying lying is part of politics. Spin is milder word for lying.

You bet it is. It's also an euphemism for the term "lie".

The Dems do it, the Repubs do it and we do it trying to convince each other of the error of our ways.

Are you implying that "spin" or lying is good, as long as you can convince me of the error of my ways? Have
you, sir, ever been convinced of the error of your ways by having people lie or "spin" to you? Is a Spin or Lie Methodology your preferred approach in coming to "see the light"? What's wrong with Truth? Old fashioned? Outdated? Outmoded? Truth just doesn't "rock" anymore, eh?

Spin merges with, and becomes outright lying in politics before you know it.

Spin doesn't merge with anything. Spinning is synonymous with lying!

I agree that probably most politicians during most moments in their life may not have to lie, but as they present their official "face" to the world, spin enters into their act.

Ohh...so now you're changing your tune from what you stated earlier -- which by way of reminder was that "politicians must lie"? I take it that you have seen the grievous error of that kind of proposition and have caught a small glimpse of the frightening and ominously dark road down which only that kind of theory can lead us once the fundamentally important element of choice becomes a non-factor.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

EQ, Any woman can get an abortion in this country for any reason. If she's a teenager the secular crowd has even taken it out of the hands of the parents. If you're the husband of a woman that wants an abortion and you want the baby you have NO RIGHTS! What part don't you understand?
The ACLU is busily erasing God's name everywhere they can find it using the misapplied argument of separation of Church and State. There morals of this country are sliding downhill in the name of "NUANCE" and i'm sick of it. I do not attend church and am not a member of any organized faith. I do not impose my beliefs on others and i'm sick of the ACLU and other assorted liberals doing the very thing they accuse people of faith of doing.

[sq764]

I honestly believe that if Kerry says the lie enough to himself, it becomes a truth in his mind.. (As George Costanza says, "It is not a lie if YOU believe it")

Some truths in Kerry's mind

- $200 Billion spent already on Iraq

- He voted for the war..er against it, er I mean for it, then against it then for it.. ok, let's skip this one..

- Shinseki was forced out because he spoke out against troop levels in Iraq

- The actual job loss during Bush's presidency should be noted, THEN doubled, then refernced as such in both debates..

[boxcar]

Equineer wrote:

JustRalph,

What does this have to do with voluntary abortions?

Why don't you ask this of Pro-Abortionists who, for the most part, are staunchly opposed to the Law!?

For starters, may I be so bold as to suggest that it follows logically that since a fetus can become a victim of a crime (according to federal law), then that fetus is something more than an unhuman blob of cells?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Equineer wrote:

Boxcar,

Fortunately, there is no evidence that secular humanists are advocating a constitutional amendment or legislation to make abortions mandatory.

That's because we haven't yet evolved into what China has already become! And besides, sir, what would happen to society if abortions were mandatory for all pregnacies? How would we continue to exist. How would we procreate?

Neither have I seen any news reports of secular humanists assassinating doctors or bombing hospital maternity wards.

For sure, the whackos have no lock on any belief system. Just ask the Environmentalist Whackos who worship Mother Earth!

Boxcar

[Equineer]

Originally posted by boxcar
Equineer wrote:

JustRalph,

What does this have to do with voluntary abortions?

Why don't you ask this of Pro-Abortionists who, for the most part, are staunchly opposed to the Law!?

For starters, may I be so bold as to suggest that it follows logically that since a fetus can become a victim of a crime (according to federal law), then that fetus is something more than an unhuman blob of cells?

Boxcar Among state fetus protection laws, those overturned by the courts have been rejected because they tried to legally define a fetus as a human being. See earlier post or do some research.

[Lefty]

overturned by the most liberal judges in the land. That's just another reason to relect Bush.
The secularists impose their belief all over the place then accuse faith based people of doing it. Gimme a brk, puhleeze!

[boxcar]

Equineer wrote:

Among state fetus protection laws, those overturned by the courts have been rejected because they tried to legally define a fetus as a human being. See earlier post or do some research.

Well, then, you prove Lefty's and my point nicely, then, don't you? The godless Secular Humanist jurists in this country will defy all common sense, logic, scruples and morality in order to advance their social agenda and force it upon all of us. Unfortunately, very many of the uniformed and misguided believe that even bad laws give them unfettered license to act immorally. This is how entire societies and cultures deteriotae and decay...from within...by bad laws.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Let's get back to the common sense side of the argument.

These are the same people who are in favor of partial delivery of a baby and then taking a pair of medical scissors and plunging them into the babies brain..........and they call it "voluntary" abortion. They also call themselves "progressives" I don't believe in any form of greater being..........but common sense has to tell you that this is out and out murder........no matter the circumstances...........if there is a special place like hell, these people who participate in this type of "procedure" should be first class residents...........

[hcap]

Hey Boxcar, let me shake you from your slumber.

I said .....

"I am saying lying is part of politics. Spin is milder word for lying."

Your response....

"You bet it is. It's also an euphemism for the term "lie. "Spinning is synonymous with lying!"

In your Manicheistic world, there is only black and white. You apparently ignored my point that there are degrees of lying, as there are an infinite number of shades of grey between white and black. Nuance requires the ability to NOT think only with the reptilian brain. That is more suited to knee-jerking flight or fight responses.

I said

"The Dems do it, the Repubs do it and we do it trying to convince each other of the error of our ways."

Your response...

"Are you implying that "spin" or lying is good, as long as you can convince me of the error of my ways? Have
you, sir, ever been convinced of the error of your ways by having people lie or "spin" to you? Is a Spin or Lie Methodology your preferred approach in coming to "see the light"? What's wrong with Truth? Old fashioned? Outdated? Outmoded? Truth just doesn't "rock" anymore, eh?"

Not only are you on your sanctimonious perch, you continue you ooze the cartoon persona of Foghorn Leghorn.
There is nothing wrong with the truth. You should try it some time. Clears the pompous arrogance from the "I am the the sole propreiter of truth," you seem to start each argument with.

Let me give you an example from the real world. A minor fib by a politician. Compared to some really dark lies, this is a .001 on a scale of 0 to 100.

75 being, oh let's say, "Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction deployable at 45 minutes" Repeated by Tony Blair and preznit flighsuitboy, now thoroughly discredited. The fib is about cheese.

Some backround...

On August 11, 2003, Kerry visited a famous Philadelphia cheesesteak stand. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported the next day, he did not follow the local custom of topping the sandwich with Cheez Whiz, instead, choose Swiss cheese. Goes along perfectly with Kerry as NOT the working-class.
"Republicans had been whispering to reporters for months that Kerry "looks French." Switzerland was close enough."

So, george bush, on or about August 11, 2004 trying to snuggle up to Philly residents, said in great fanfare "This is the 32nd time I’ve been to your state of Pennsylvania,, and, you all know the reason why, don’t you? It’s because I like my cheesesteaks Whiz Wit". (with the Cheez Whiz and fried onions) However, it appears according to a Mr. Barnabei, manager of Jim’s Place...

"No. 43 prefers his steak absent of the usual Cheez Whiz and provolone, accompanied only by cheese of the American variety. "

http://www.delcotimes.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12718540&BRD=1675&PAG=461&dept_id=18171&rfi=8

So our preznit caught in a bold faced lie. About cheese. Do we call him up and say to him,as you say to me...

"Have you, sir, ever been convinced of the error of your ways by having people lie or "spin" to you? Is a Spin or Lie Methodology your preferred approach in coming to "see the light"? What's wrong with Truth? Old fashioned? Outdated? Outmoded? Truth just doesn't "rock" anymore, eh?"

Or when I say....

"I agree that probably most politicians during most moments in their life may not have to lie, but as they present their official "face" to the world, spin enters into their act.

And your response is...

" Ohh...so now you're changing your tune from what you stated earlier -- which by way of reminder was that "politicians must lie"? I take it that you have seen the grievous error of that kind of proposition and have caught a small glimpse of the frightening and ominously dark road down which only that kind of theory can lead us once the fundamentally important element of choice becomes a non-factor."

So Box do we call him, and admonish him his of his mortal sin?

So did bush have a choice? Did he do evil anyway? Did Satan invade his brain ala the Exorcist?. Is his entire presidency evil? Did he glimpse "the frightening and ominously dark road down which only that kind of theory can lead us once the fundamentally important element of choice becomes a non-factor."
Indeed sir, once a liar always a liar, I say. I say

Awaiting your response Foggy

[Lefty]

hcap, talk about spin, wow. The President and Tony Blair(seems like I and others have stated this truth a 1000 times)blved Saddam has WMD's cause the the Intelligence community of the WHOLE WORLD said so. Not to act on such intelligence would have been deriliction of duty. You've heard clip after clip where Kerry and Edwards said the same thing but you keep trying to pin this (perceived)lie on Bush and Blair. Why don't you want to recognize the truth of it? I know, doesn't fit your agenda. So when you say Bush lied you spin or is that YOU lie?

[Tom]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Let's get back to the common sense side of the argument.

These are the same people who are in favor of partial delivery of a baby and then taking a pair of medical scissors and plunging them into the babies brain..........and they call it "voluntary" abortion. They also call themselves "progressives" I don't believe in any form of greater being..........but common sense has to tell you that this is out and out murder........no matter the circumstances...........if there is a special place like hell, these people who participate in this type of "procedure" should be first class residents...........


And many of these sluts and murdering docs are burning there now. Good.
At what point does birth occurr? Partial birth - that is just typical of the sleezy sluts and ho' s that populate the dem party. Partial birth...anyone who would seriously use that term is a sick piece of work that is without any redeeming qualitys, and is a murderer, plain and simple.
The worse form of life, lower even than a child molester. MUch lower.

[boxcar]

'Cap wrote:

Hey Boxcar, let me shake you from your slumber.

Why do you project the foggy condition of your mental processes unto me? Methinks it is you who needs to be shaken violently from your slumber, sir. You stated clearly on 10-06 in response to a Lefty post:

"Lefty, I already said I wasn't in favour of the war from day 1. From an ideological point of view, I am not overjoyed. From a practical view, considering politicians must lie..."

I called you on this most absurd statement, explaining the error of your position clearly, its implications and why it was so untenable. Evidently, I was successful in getting you to see the error of your ways, for you felt to compelled to respond -- alas, by adopting a Kerry tactic! By Flip-Flopping. By Equivocating. In your first 10-07 response, you said:

If you won't admit politicians lie, I've a bridge to sell you. In fact lying in politics is a given.

Instead of being honest enough to admit you were wrong, you try to subtly soften your stance and not so subtly imply that I'm naieve. You did this by switching from"must lie" to merely "[all] politicians lie" in a transparent attempt to ease the force of my argument. But you see, 'Cap, I never called into question the fact that"politicians lie" -- only that "politicians must lie".

In response to another of my posts, you then more clearly back-tracked (nearly a full 180, I might add) in a later post on the same date (10/7) altogether from your initial foolishness with:

"I agree that probably most politicians during most moments in their life may not have to lie, but as they present their official "face" to the world, spin enters into their act."

So...in one breath you concede that "most" politicians in "most" moments "may not have to lie", but then in the next, are you implying that all politicians are two-faced -- all the time!? All politicians have one "private" face that is known only to the their intimate inner circle consisting of family, friends and perhaps even some close political cronies, but also have a "public" face that is or "must be" presented to anyone and everyone who is outside the above mentioned "inner circle", e.g. the "world"? If a politician is perpetually two-faced, then it seems to me he must be prepared to lie "all the time" -- whcih is the very thing you went on to say in a later post! Good job contradicting yourself!

May I suggest, 'Cap, that the more you talk, the more your own words betray thought processes which almost certainly appear to be hopelessly trapped in a very thick fog, making it impossible for you to successfully naviagate through a mental labyrinth that is so charactericstic of liberal ideology, for you later wrote:

In fact WE All lie. We are all guilty of that sin. A little white lie-a dark and deadly lie, it is a question of degree.

Merely deflective statements. A red herring that has nothing at all do with the central issue of "politicians must lie".

But things get worse for you by your next utterance:

Thankfully most of us and most polticians fall between the extremes...

Somewhow to your distorted way of thinking, it's better that most people fall between the "extremes" of "little white" lies and those "dark and deadly" ones? Seems to me, sir, that if you're going to accept lying as something that is a given, that is normal and as natural as breathing air, it would be far better that most lies fall on the lowest end of the Lie Detector Scale (since "WE all lie", anyway) rather than at some point between this end and the very highest. Didn't you write: The higher the lie level, the worse and dangerous the politician.? Why would you be "thankful", then, for grade A, medium-sized lies? In fact, why not save your thankfullness for the rare moments when someone (including politicians) speak truthfully!?

But as you continued to peck away at your keyboard, you unwittingly accorded at least some of us (I'm sure) an opportunity to get a even deeper glimpse into that dark maze from which rational thoughts are begging to freed, for in the very same sentence you continued with:

...although I would suggest politics can only be played successfully and skillfully by the practioneer who lies more than most of do in our daily lives. That is the nature of the beast .

Is the only test that matters, (in what I have to think is your world of Moral Relativism), on the Lie Detector Meter simply qualitative in nature -- a test that merely measures the "degree" of lies? We need not concern ourselves with any quantitative measurements? But wait! Didn't you just earlier get done saying that "probably most politicians during most moments in their life may not have to lie"? But now you're essentially saying that the game of politics can only be played successfully and skillfully" by a frequent liars? Talk about equivocating! About flip-flopping! About waffling!

And didn't you also write:?

Indeed sir, once a liar always a liar, I say. I say

Does this little maxim of yours apply only to those with whom you have poltical disagreements?
Are you saying that Kerry and Edwards haven't lied at all? About anything? Ever? Haven't lied either by commission or omission?

And wouldn't you have to admit that one lie almost inevitably leads to another to cover up the first one, and and then a 3rd one to cover up the first two, then a fourth...etc., etc., etc.? And wouldn't you concede that the more one lies, the more habit-forming it becomes? The easier it becomes to lie because that little faculty called [i]conscience[/b] becomes deafened to that "inner voice" that condemns evil and hardened toward virtuous practices? And when does habit cross the line to "chronic"? And when is that line crossed over into "pathologicial"? Lying doesn't exactly build good character or inculcate high moral fiber, does it? In the final anaysis, maybe all such distincitions are semantical in nature. How does everything you have said apply to your hero Kerry?

When I asked how do you know if Kerry isn't a pathological liar, you didn't give a real answer, but simply answered me with another question about how do I know Bush isn't. But if we apply your argument as a test of sorts to judge whether or not your boy Lurch is a bonafide Liar (something which many in the Liberal Media, including ABC in the latest MemoGate scandal, concede that he is and, therefore, earnestly desire to cover up or gloss over so as to deceive the public into believing otherwise, then it becomes very obvious to me that Kerry is indeed a skilled prevaricator.

Isn't Kerry a career politician? Been around almost two decades? Wouldn't you have to concede logically that he's a successful politician? That he's a fighter and survivor in the political arena? That he knows what it takes to defeat his opponents? That he really knows how to play the "game of politics"? Following your argument, therefore, wouldn't Kerry qualify as both a "successful" politician who has, over the last two decades or so, "skillfully" played the game of politics? If you have the moral wherewithal to truthfully answer these rhetorical questions, then you must concede by your own writings that Kerry must have lied quite often; for also according to you:

I got news for you Box, all canditates seek political gain. The question is, is that the only motivation.

1-Politicians lie all the time.

a- In order to get elected.
b-to avoid being jailed
c-to work within the sytem itself to pass legislation.
d-to present a persona other than who they really are.

(So much for your earlier empty words that "most" politicians in "most" moments probably don't have to lie!
You're tripping over your own confusion.)

Perhaps, sir, you would clarify your comment about "motivation". Please tell me me if the seeking of political gain is more noble than any of the four points listed above -- or are one or more of those points more noble than merely seeking political gain? Or how about if I add to your list? How about the quest for Power? For Fame? For a Legacy, which certainly seemed to be one of Clinton's preoccupations?

Finally, you wrote:

In your Manicheistic world, there is only black and white. You apparently ignored my point that there are degrees of lying, as there are an infinite number of shades of grey between white and black. Nuance requires the ability to NOT think only with the reptilian brain. That is more suited to knee-jerking flight or fight responses.

Again, "degrees of lying" is not the reason I answered your post in the first place. Yes...there are indeed "big" lies and "little" ones. There are lies that are more hurtful and damaging than others. My point is that all lying, for the reasons I listed earlier in this thread, is wrong. None of it is excusable. None of it is defensible. None of it is justifiable. And according to the Good Book, no unrepentant sinner (remember: you called lying a "sin"!) will go unpunished on the Last Day when s/he stands before the Judge of the Universe.

And be absolutely assured of this: I do not subscribe to "Manicheistic" (which you probably meant to say Manichean) World. I'm not an advocate of some kind of religious dualism. Having said this, I make no apology for possessing a moral compass that is trustworthy, tried, tested and proven -- one whose points are fixed and do not shift positions from one day to the next because my compass is not subject to idle speculations, novel ideas, whims, fancies or fads. Most ethical/moral decisions are not as difficult to make as you would have us believe. I know because my moral choices most of the time (thanks be to God!) find their ground in the injunctions and godly principles contained in the Good Book -- a book that is at once the most profound piece of literature in the world, but also one of the easiest to understand because it was, for the most part, written plainly and clearly to mankind for man's benefit, and ultimately for God's glory.

Ciao,
Boxcar

[hcap]

Box,

You persist in denying the obvious. I never said I am in favour of lying, just that in the real world of human beings, lying is a given.
And that Politics is a realm where lying is practised to a greater degree.

This is embodied in another realm-notably, the advertising and public relations industry.
Do you actually think Preparation H is the ointment of choice? Or maybe you too can be the Marlboro Man,
if you inhale deeply? Our culture revolves around consumerism. Economic outcomes of multi-billion dollar corporations are invested in selling images and perceptions of their products and their corporate identity to consumers. Do we deny we are on the receiving end of their spin?
Yeah included in commercials are truths and facts. Like at the end of a drug tv ad, after promising their loyal consumers A VIBRANT new lease on life, a pleasant voice warning a matter of fact way of 100 side effects, some being 10x more serious than the condition you are seeking to remedy.

Spin city on steriods.
Well you are being spun in PR campaigns, advertising campaigns all the time.

So if as you say "Spinning is synonymous with lying!"
You are being lied to constantly.

Why do you object that a factual reporting of the same in politics? Do you realize that during election time, advertising and PR are bought with lots of political money. Political strategy is focussed on which "markets" to "target".

Sounds like Preparation H for the masses to me.

In trying to decipher the endless bullshit coming from this realm, we all most try to discern in our choices of politicians, among other things, the LEAST of the liars.
I repeat my initial comment
"From an ideological point of view, I am not overjoyed. From a practical view, considering politicians must lie, I am not too unhappy"

I did say must lie as a PRACTICAL matter----

a- In order to get elected.
b-to avoid being jailed
c-to work within the sytem itself to pass legislation.
d-to present a persona other than who they really are.

Well as a PRACTICAL matter, the advertising and PR industry also lies. Practical means PROFIT.
But as educated consumers, it is up to us to research, say which auto has the best safety record, and if that is our "ideology"
buy that auto.

Why is this harder to understand than choosing a poltical candidate?
Oh yeah what about Dubya spinning on cheese? Was it necessary for him to lie?
Must he have lied, or was it simply the practical thing to do?