Author Topic: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever  (Read 59883 times)

Random Citizen

  • Guest
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #135 on: October 05, 2004, 11:38:00 pm »
Did anyone else get the feeling Cheney wanted to add "Fuck off!" to his brief comment thanking the Fun Uncle for bringing up his gay daughter?  :D

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #136 on: October 05, 2004, 11:43:00 pm »
I think Cheney wanted to use the "fuck off" rebuttal on several occasions.
 
 I'm surprised Edwards didn't do better.  We all know Cheney's a wonk, but I thought Edwards would look more relaxed and sure of himself and less rehearsed.
 
 All in all, much more entertaining than the presidential debate.

Random Citizen

  • Guest
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #137 on: October 05, 2004, 11:51:00 pm »
I started dozing off towards the middle. I think it was the format of having them sit down. It reminded me of those informercials with Kevin Trudeau trying to sell fiber pills.

hitman

  • Member
  • Posts: 632
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #138 on: October 06, 2004, 01:05:00 am »
I thought Edwards did great.  He never shrugged off responding like Cheney did a few times.  And so far Edwards is the only one to bring up and challenge Cheney on Halliburton, and Cheney's own record for voting against Defense initiatives in the 80's (those same Def. initiatives that he loves to talk so much about now).

  • Guest
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #139 on: October 06, 2004, 02:32:00 am »
Bush's debate notes.

sonickteam2

  • Guest
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #140 on: October 06, 2004, 08:36:00 am »
why where they sitting down? that was stupid.

Barcelona

  • Member
  • Posts: 1342
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #141 on: October 06, 2004, 08:47:00 am »
Cheney's reference to El Salvador was such a lie!

chaz

  • Member
  • Posts: 5111
  • este lugar es una mierda
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #142 on: October 06, 2004, 09:01:00 am »
I think one of the most signifigant points raised over and over is why, when they supposedly had Osama and his guys cornered, did they "outsource" his capture to local warlards?  To be perfectly honest I'm not even sure of the validity of this claim made by the Dems but Bush and Dick each have had 2 chances during the debates to comment on it.  In every instance of its mention they both failed to address this.  The fact that they've not taken the opportunity to respond to these statement doesn't look too good and leads me to believe that the Dem's claims are in fact spot-on.
 But it's not like my vote is up for grabs or anything anyway.

Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #143 on: October 06, 2004, 09:06:00 am »
Because fatass Cheney might have a heart attack.
 
 This played to the advantage of the Republicans, given that Edwards is a stand up fighting trial lawyer, and Cheney is a fatass.
 
 I'm surprised Donald Rumpfelt didn't have an objection to this sit down crap.
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
  why where they sitting down? that was stupid.

grotty

  • Guest
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #144 on: October 06, 2004, 09:34:00 am »
In a strange twist - all a relatively strong showing by Cheney did for me is reinforce just how much of a buffoon Bush really is.
 
 To me - there appears to be 3 candidates worthy of election. The 4th, and least worthy, is infortunately the incumbent.
 
 It's still basically just a competency issue for me. And Bush clearly isn't (competent).
 
 Why the Repubs settled for him (Bush) is almost beyond comprehension to me now.

sonickteam2

  • Guest
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #145 on: October 06, 2004, 09:35:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
 
 This played to the advantage of the Republicans,  
doesnt everything seem to?  the democrats really dont have a chance.....

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #146 on: October 06, 2004, 10:07:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by chaz:
  I think one of the most signifigant points raised over and over is why, when they supposedly had Osama and his guys cornered, did they "outsource" his capture to local warlards?  To be perfectly honest I'm not even sure of the validity of this claim made by the Dems but Bush and Dick each have had 2 chances during the debates to comment on it.  In every instance of its mention they both failed to address this.  The fact that they've not taken the opportunity to respond to these statement doesn't look too good and leads me to believe that the Dem's claims are in fact spot-on.
 But it's not like my vote is up for grabs or anything anyway.
From the Washington Post:
 
 Edwards's statement that U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape during the battle at Tora Bora in 2001 echoed Kerry's repeated assertions about the December 2001 battle in Afghanistan during last Thursday's debate. The Pentagon in fact relied on Afghan proxy forces in an effort to minimize the potential loss of U.S. military lives, but whether bin Laden was at Tora Bora at the time of the assault there has been the subject of debate. After the battle, intelligence officials assembled what they believed was decisive evidence that bin Laden began the battle inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border before slipping away. But retired Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, a Bush backer who led U.S. Central Command in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has said he never saw conclusive proof that the al Qaeda leader was in Tora Bora at the time.
 
 Franks has taken responsibility for the decision to send Afghan militias rather than U.S. ground troops to Tora Bora. During an interview last month at the Republican convention in New York, where the retired general endorsed Bush and addressed the delegates, Franks said his decision was influenced by the Soviet Union's disastrous efforts in the 1980s to fight with ground troops in Afghanistan. He also said the strategy was to use Afghan forces, backed by U.S. air power, to drive al Qaeda toward the Pakistani border, where 100,000 Pakistani troops killed and captured hundreds of al Qaeda operatives. Bin Laden was not among them.
 
 After the Tora Bora fight, as local Afghan militias began withdrawing, considering their part of the war over, top Pentagon officials appeared ready to send hundreds of conventional ground troops into the White Mountains to press the search for bin Laden and his associates. That plan was dropped in favor of offers of money, weapons and cold-weather clothing to sustain Afghan cooperation.
 
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/1005c_text.html

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #147 on: October 06, 2004, 10:13:00 am »
The best part of the debate would have to be Cheney dropping the ball on the Halliburton accusations.
 
 He suggested that viewers should look at the political fact checking website set up by the University of Pennsylvania.  Unfortunately for Cheney, he gave the address as factcheck.com, rather than the correct address of factcheck.org.  This is a seemingly minor oversight until one goes to www.factcheck.com and discovers that the site automatically redirects to the website of the Democrat's bagman -- George Soros.

ratioci nation

  • Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #148 on: October 06, 2004, 10:36:00 am »
apparently Cheney had also met Edwards several times

hitman

  • Member
  • Posts: 632
Re: Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever
« Reply #149 on: October 06, 2004, 10:46:00 am »
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
   
Quote
Originally posted by chaz:
  I think one of the most signifigant points raised over and over is why, when they supposedly had Osama and his guys cornered, did they "outsource" his capture to local warlards?  To be perfectly honest I'm not even sure of the validity of this claim made by the Dems but Bush and Dick each have had 2 chances during the debates to comment on it.  In every instance of its mention they both failed to address this.  The fact that they've not taken the opportunity to respond to these statement doesn't look too good and leads me to believe that the Dem's claims are in fact spot-on.
 But it's not like my vote is up for grabs or anything anyway.
From the Washington Post:
 
 Edwards's statement that U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape during the battle at Tora Bora in 2001 echoed Kerry's repeated assertions about the December 2001 battle in Afghanistan during last Thursday's debate. The Pentagon in fact relied on Afghan proxy forces in an effort to minimize the potential loss of U.S. military lives, but whether bin Laden was at Tora Bora at the time of the assault there has been the subject of debate. After the battle, intelligence officials assembled what they believed was decisive evidence that bin Laden began the battle inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border before slipping away. But retired Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, a Bush backer who led U.S. Central Command in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has said he never saw conclusive proof that the al Qaeda leader was in Tora Bora at the time.
 
 Franks has taken responsibility for the decision to send Afghan militias rather than U.S. ground troops to Tora Bora. During an interview last month at the Republican convention in New York, where the retired general endorsed Bush and addressed the delegates, Franks said his decision was influenced by the Soviet Union's disastrous efforts in the 1980s to fight with ground troops in Afghanistan. He also said the strategy was to use Afghan forces, backed by U.S. air power, to drive al Qaeda toward the Pakistani border, where 100,000 Pakistani troops killed and captured hundreds of al Qaeda operatives. Bin Laden was not among them.
 
 After the Tora Bora fight, as local Afghan militias began withdrawing, considering their part of the war over, top Pentagon officials appeared ready to send hundreds of conventional ground troops into the White Mountains to press the search for bin Laden and his associates. That plan was dropped in favor of offers of money, weapons and cold-weather clothing to sustain Afghan cooperation.
 
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/1005c_text.html [/b]
I'm sure that Franks taking the blame has nothing to do with trying to make Bush look better (shaking head in disbelief).