M
mryan
Guest
Who won?
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2001
- Messages
- 31,154
- Points
- 0
Much more reasonable. Thank you.mryan said:
Stephen
New member
I found Cheney much more capableof answering the questions that were asked whereas Edwards would either a) repeat the answer from the previous question or b) ignore the question altogether.
If I had to choose who would be the more stable leader should it come to that, Cheney is the pick.
-Stephen
If I had to choose who would be the more stable leader should it come to that, Cheney is the pick.
-Stephen
hammer
Active member
Neither?
I'm admittedly biased against Cheney, but neither candidate's performance makes me jump and say "he should be our VP for the next 4 years."
So, I'd like to vote "neither" but that answer isn't available...
I'm admittedly biased against Cheney, but neither candidate's performance makes me jump and say "he should be our VP for the next 4 years."
So, I'd like to vote "neither" but that answer isn't available...
Stephen
New member
Re: Neither?
I could never imagine any VP candidate elicting that reaction1 LOL
-Stephen
hammer said:
I could never imagine any VP candidate elicting that reaction1 LOL
-Stephen
hammer
Active member
Re: Neither?
Kinda scary when these folks are one step away from the Presidency, isn't it? :-?
Stephen said:
Kinda scary when these folks are one step away from the Presidency, isn't it? :-?
ChileMass
Active member
Cheney won, and handily.
If you are scared off or intimidated by a big corporate CEO type, then Cheney will not appeal to you. That's his style for better or for worse. Edwards tries to come across as folksy and caring, but it all seems like a big act to me. The Dems seem intent on telling everyone how much they care for us, as if that's a reason to vote for someone. I find them both to be pretty phony. They just seem to be ambitious men with no real agenda. At least Cheney and Bush seem to have some core beliefs.
Tonight's debate will be much nastier and the town-meeting format will allow a better look inside each candidate's positions and personal character.
If you are scared off or intimidated by a big corporate CEO type, then Cheney will not appeal to you. That's his style for better or for worse. Edwards tries to come across as folksy and caring, but it all seems like a big act to me. The Dems seem intent on telling everyone how much they care for us, as if that's a reason to vote for someone. I find them both to be pretty phony. They just seem to be ambitious men with no real agenda. At least Cheney and Bush seem to have some core beliefs.
Tonight's debate will be much nastier and the town-meeting format will allow a better look inside each candidate's positions and personal character.
M
mryan
Guest
hi chilemass--
i agree: cheney is the big, bad corporate ceo type. but you contradict yourself. you say they are both phonies. then you say that cheney, unlike edwards, has some core values.
furthermore, what values does cheney have exactly? what values does edwards have exactly?
my impression of cheney's beliefs: ultra-conservative bordering on fascist.
also: we saw who really is in charge: cheney. bush is but a puppet, as he always has been, for interests he probably does not even completely understand. cheney, unlike bush, knew all the facts(theough some were clearly distorted; example: not meeting edwards before the debate; see photo of edwards and cheney sitting next to each other in 2001 at some meeting) and ins and outs of policy. edwards did too. if bush doesn't stop simply recycling bumper sticker phrases and at least put forth the effort to grasp some facts, kerry will make him look like he did last week: like a fool.
i agree: cheney is the big, bad corporate ceo type. but you contradict yourself. you say they are both phonies. then you say that cheney, unlike edwards, has some core values.
furthermore, what values does cheney have exactly? what values does edwards have exactly?
my impression of cheney's beliefs: ultra-conservative bordering on fascist.
also: we saw who really is in charge: cheney. bush is but a puppet, as he always has been, for interests he probably does not even completely understand. cheney, unlike bush, knew all the facts(theough some were clearly distorted; example: not meeting edwards before the debate; see photo of edwards and cheney sitting next to each other in 2001 at some meeting) and ins and outs of policy. edwards did too. if bush doesn't stop simply recycling bumper sticker phrases and at least put forth the effort to grasp some facts, kerry will make him look like he did last week: like a fool.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2001
- Messages
- 31,154
- Points
- 0
You know, I didn't see the entire debate so I can't really vote, but that line by Cheney could've been a pwerful blow. His delivery was perfect. Too bad it seems the two must've met beforehand. I wonder if that was a scripted line, or Cheney just improvised it. Either way, dumb move.mryan said:
I did have to chuckle a bit when Edwards, when asked to not mention his running mate by name in his response, twice blurted out, "John Kerry and I......whoops...I broke the rules...". :lol:
Bush is going to need to do well tonight to make up lost ground. It should be interesting...
ChileMass
Active member
When I said they were both phonies, I meant both Kerry and Edwards, not Edwards and Cheney in the debate.
mryan - unfortunately, I find your views simplistic and depressingly cynical. Conspiracy theories, either on the right or on the left, make for juicy novels and interesting websites, but I don't have any evidence of Bush being a puppet and I'm guessing neither do you.
And all Republicans are fascists because they aren't standing there with a wad of taxpayer cash ready to give it away to anyone unwilling to go out and earn a living. Ridiculous. Democrats continue to try to sell the fantasy that the government is smart enough to know what you want, and will provide you with the basics of life for "free". This is simply impossible, but it's a nice fairy tale that lots of people want to believe.
Voting for Repblicans is voting for smaller government that expects you to go out and be responsible and take care of yourself. Papa Cheney isn't going to give you something for nothing, and his demeanor is all about that. The differences between Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards couldn't be clearer. I agree Cheney is more focused, more impressive and possibly a lot smarter than W, and he presented a clear choice in the debate the other night.
mryan - unfortunately, I find your views simplistic and depressingly cynical. Conspiracy theories, either on the right or on the left, make for juicy novels and interesting websites, but I don't have any evidence of Bush being a puppet and I'm guessing neither do you.
And all Republicans are fascists because they aren't standing there with a wad of taxpayer cash ready to give it away to anyone unwilling to go out and earn a living. Ridiculous. Democrats continue to try to sell the fantasy that the government is smart enough to know what you want, and will provide you with the basics of life for "free". This is simply impossible, but it's a nice fairy tale that lots of people want to believe.
Voting for Repblicans is voting for smaller government that expects you to go out and be responsible and take care of yourself. Papa Cheney isn't going to give you something for nothing, and his demeanor is all about that. The differences between Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards couldn't be clearer. I agree Cheney is more focused, more impressive and possibly a lot smarter than W, and he presented a clear choice in the debate the other night.
hammer
Active member
ChileMass said:
I'd have to respectfully disagree with the statement that "voting for Republicans is voting for smaller government." If they truly were, then we'd be seeing smaller federal budgets (not all of the increases over the last 4 years are due to the war on terrorism).
Unfortunately, neither political party has the guts to truly reign in spending and reduce the size of government, it's just a matter of who they support.
Actually, I tend to think it's better when the President is from a different party than the Congressional majority, that way more compromises can be reached on where to spend the taxpayers hard-earned $$. Now, if we could combine that with a line-item veto (which can help to prevent pork projects) then maybe we could have some amount of fiscal responsibility.
Sorry if I went a little off-topic on this one...
M
mryan
Guest
ChileMass--
Conspiracy theories? That's quite a spin. Simplistic? Simplistic is the republican approach. Smaller government? Under Bush, spending has gone out of control and there has been an unprecedented increase in the amount of federal employees. yes, this is because of security. so, your simplistic statement regarding republicans is unfounded when put into context the variabilities involved in running a government, like security. your statement is a blanket statement, a generalization, in a word: simplistic.
cynical? yeah, i'm cynical......now. this administration has driven away any positivity i once had. i fear for this country. i worry that the policies of this administration are, in fact, hurting us, especially in the international arena. why am i cynical? here's why: afghanistan; pakistan(uncontrolled and dangerously unsecure nuclear program); saudi arabia and our leader's ties to the royal family; iraq(americans dying everyday and for what? freedom? oil? a combination of both?); iran(the real terrorists who, by the way, have this week come one step closer to nuclear weapons); north korea(no bilateral talks, meanwhile their nuclear program proliferates); europeans hate us now(unfortunate); the environment(gutting of environmental policies); energy(why did cheney meet secretly with heads of gigantic energy corporations, do these corps. have the public's interest at heart?); deficit(out of control)etc, etc.
i don't see an end in sight. our president is too stubborn to adjust policies in order to satisfy the needs of a changing world. i want a president who will admit faults and make the necessary changes. is that too simplistic? maybe my view is depressing because it's reality. maybe not.
Conspiracy theories? That's quite a spin. Simplistic? Simplistic is the republican approach. Smaller government? Under Bush, spending has gone out of control and there has been an unprecedented increase in the amount of federal employees. yes, this is because of security. so, your simplistic statement regarding republicans is unfounded when put into context the variabilities involved in running a government, like security. your statement is a blanket statement, a generalization, in a word: simplistic.
cynical? yeah, i'm cynical......now. this administration has driven away any positivity i once had. i fear for this country. i worry that the policies of this administration are, in fact, hurting us, especially in the international arena. why am i cynical? here's why: afghanistan; pakistan(uncontrolled and dangerously unsecure nuclear program); saudi arabia and our leader's ties to the royal family; iraq(americans dying everyday and for what? freedom? oil? a combination of both?); iran(the real terrorists who, by the way, have this week come one step closer to nuclear weapons); north korea(no bilateral talks, meanwhile their nuclear program proliferates); europeans hate us now(unfortunate); the environment(gutting of environmental policies); energy(why did cheney meet secretly with heads of gigantic energy corporations, do these corps. have the public's interest at heart?); deficit(out of control)etc, etc.
i don't see an end in sight. our president is too stubborn to adjust policies in order to satisfy the needs of a changing world. i want a president who will admit faults and make the necessary changes. is that too simplistic? maybe my view is depressing because it's reality. maybe not.
riverc0il
New member
gotta say that both candidates did an aweful job from what i heard (first hour before i dozed off). both candidates started off with scripted lines and didn't even seem to answer the first question. then they kept repeating themselves (edwards a little more, but chenney too). worst was the back and forth on stats that both candidates were exagerating and falsafying.
NPR had a great piece on the following morning tearing both candidates and their stats apart. they played one candidate talking about a stat saying the other candidate was wrong - then they said what the stat really was. then they did the same for the other candidate.
also, both candidates kept going back for a 2nd or 3rd re-butal after the next question was posed. i felt that the debate was really weak and didn't expose anything new except that neither candidate have their facts completely straight. it scared me more that the current VP had bad stats than the contender, but that isn't saying much at all.
the worst of it all was the commentary before the debate was much more informative than the debate itself. journalists cited were each candidate would stand and what they would say. it was almost 100% accurate prediction and they didn't even know the questions before hand i don't think? the debate was just mean and nasty and not well argued by either edwards or chenney.
regardless of president getting the vote, i'm hoping for four years of good health from who ever the president will be!
NPR had a great piece on the following morning tearing both candidates and their stats apart. they played one candidate talking about a stat saying the other candidate was wrong - then they said what the stat really was. then they did the same for the other candidate.
also, both candidates kept going back for a 2nd or 3rd re-butal after the next question was posed. i felt that the debate was really weak and didn't expose anything new except that neither candidate have their facts completely straight. it scared me more that the current VP had bad stats than the contender, but that isn't saying much at all.
the worst of it all was the commentary before the debate was much more informative than the debate itself. journalists cited were each candidate would stand and what they would say. it was almost 100% accurate prediction and they didn't even know the questions before hand i don't think? the debate was just mean and nasty and not well argued by either edwards or chenney.
regardless of president getting the vote, i'm hoping for four years of good health from who ever the president will be!
smitty77
New member
What's depressing is that you think Kerry will be the one to admit faults. He can't ever admit to being wrong when he hasn't taken a solid position on anything since the race started. I'd really like to know how you can be a true catholic and pro-choice at the same time. How can you vote for a military action, and then vote against the funding, and then criticize Bush for not providing our troops with the supplies and armor they need? He's a hipocrite that will say ANYTHING to get elected. This is the man you should fear the most.mryan said:
In the first debate, Kerry said he wants to bring diplomacy back to the white house, and then cited some great presidents. Included in this list is John F Kennedy. I'm sorry - but if Kerry thinks that the man who botched the Bay-of-Pigs, brought us to the brink of nuclear war with Russia and Cuba, and burried us in Vietnam is a great diplomat, then we're screwed.
riverc0il
New member
gross overstatement.smitty77 said:
Stephen
New member
riverc0il said:
True. He did say he's had ONE solid position on Iraq...
Similar threads
