Thoughts? Opinions? I thought they both did a pretty good job, Cheney smacked Edwards around a bit, Edwards threw a couple jabs of his own in. Both sides spit out some false information, both had their talking points down pat - but I give the edge to Cheney, Edwards at times tried too hard to play the audience rather than stick to the questions. Both of them screwed up their closing arguments in a few spots - Cheney looked like he got lost a bit with all the info he wanted to get out, and Edwards tried his best to be Sam Waterston. That being said, if Bush is smart - he paid close attention to how Cheney held himself last night.

One thing I know for sure is that [i]somebody[/i] is going to put some little flash movie together regarding the moment when Cheney thanked Edwards for the comments about his daughter. Edit together some long takes of them looking at each other, play a little "Dreamweaver" in the background - instant classic.

thought is was good on both sides.

what i constantly don't like about the Edwards/Kerry Campaign (purposely reversed names because i think Edwards is ten time the person Kerry is,) is that they both are so vague about their plan for national security. Simply saying "We're going to kill terrorists" doesn't tell me a goddammed thing. And further more, while Cheney tossed around a lot of numbers and stats, Edwards really didn't have much response directly to those numbers other than just being a good debater and renewing his own points.

The Haliburton issue, Cheney constantly dodged and Edwards constantly kept throwing it back in his face. But after awhile when Cheney didn't really respond directly to the Haliburton issue, for Edwards to throw it back out in response to Cheney's direct attacks, it was just like, "yeah, we've heard the halliburton thing before, matter of fact, like 5 mintues ago."

Meanwhile, Cheney is ripping Edwards apart on his lack of service in the Senate, missed 70% of the votes ffs. Thought it was brilliant when Cheney said, "I'm there every tuesday when we're in session, have been for years, and the first time i met you was when we walked on this stage....Senator Gone!" OH SNAP!!!

However, with both VP candidates skilled in debate, it's tough to pick a clear winner as neither one really did more damage than the other one. I do think that Cheney helped the Bush campaign more than Edwards helped Kerry. Edwards drove home the same points Kerry has been saying on the campaign trail, while Cheney said all the things correctly that dumbass Bush can never spit out. Gotta give the edge to the (R) Campaign in this debate for that reason alone.

[quote=Jenks";p="61784] Meanwhile, Cheney is ripping Edwards apart on his lack of service in the Senate, missed 70% of the votes ffs. Thought it was brilliant when Cheney said, "I'm there every tuesday when we're in session, have been for years, and the first time i met you was when we walked on this stage....Senator Gone!" OH SNAP!!! [/quote]

It's really simple to debate when youre just flat-out making shit up. Not only did Cheney only serve as the presiding officer of the Senate TWICE only in nearly 4 years, see [url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/11163/2940[/url] for the story, but he also has met Edwards several times before this including:

[img]http://www.mokeys.org/images/ec.jpg[/img]

From the Breakfast Club Prayer, 2001. [url=http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:S4X7WDzDUcoJ:static.highbeam.com/w/washingtontranscriptservice/february012001/vicepresidentdickcheneyvicepresidentdickcheneydeli/+%22+friends+from+across+America,+and+distinguished+visitors+to+our+country+from+all+over+the+world:+Lynne+and+I+are+honored+to+be+with+you+all+this+morning%22&hl=en]Cheneys Lies[/url]

yep, saw that after i responded. they're politicians, they both made shit up.

i still contend edwards didn't do anything to help or hurt kerry, while Cheney did help Bush.

[quote=Jenks";p="61943]yep, saw that after i responded. they're politicians, they both made shit up.

i still contend edwards didn't do anything to help or hurt kerry, while Cheney did help Bush.[/quote]

I've seen plenty of spots where Cheney lied. Thus far, I have yet to see any area where Edwards just flat-out lied.

ok you win. go go go rah rah rah.

[quote=Jenks";p="61973]ok you win. go go go rah rah rah.[/quote]

That was far too easy, I expected a challenge.

lol, that's going to be difficult, because i don't give a flying fuck.

Re: VP Debate

Showing up for a breakfast where no votes are cast is clearly no excuse to miss 70% of potential votes. Frankly i'm glad he and Kerry don't show up to vote b/c Kerry = 1st and Edwards = 3rd for most liberal senators decided by a nonpartisan group! Another attempt by liberals to catch Cheney in a "lie" and overseeing the LOGIC!

get real, u guys are going to lose....the american people cant be fooled that easily

I am both SHOCKED and OUTRAGED at the voting record of Edwards and Kerry. I am equally "" and "" at their approach to defending this country...which i'm not even quite clear what it is. And THAT is my biggest problem with those two.

look, i'm not saying Cheney is an angel here, nor am i saying Edwards did bad. If this was a contest to see who contributed to their respective campaign more in this debate, it was Bush/Cheney who benefited more. I heard nothing "new" from Edwards that i've not heard since he and kerry have been campainging. He was still solid as a fucking brick on the debate end of things, props. However, Bush is the worst debater i've ever seen. EVER. I mean...Fucking EVER!! Everything Cheney said, with respect to numbers and stats, what they've achieved, albeit allegedly, in 4 years on domestic and foreign affairs is stuff i've never heard out of bush, unless he's farting some numbers out of his ass in some discombobulated spasm of a response that happens to be somewhat logical. Edwards did a good job. So did Cheney. I think the republican camp ought to be happy with the way that debate went. Now friday Bush can go fuck it up again...god love the guy tho.

Re: VP Debate

I think both men did as well as they could, but I think Edwards came out more nice, friendly and personable and Cheney seemed very serious and direct. I think Edwards didn't really get any good jabs in, but he presented the Kerry/Edwards political points well enough. Cheney certainly brought his experience to bear on the situation which Edwards humbly admitted he was lacking (good for him). The problem is I think people are voting mostly on security issues and I think if that is a measure of the debate, then I think Cheney won, it's dam hard for Edwards to make people believe that he and Kerry are really going to make a difference in the War on Terror and Iraq.

Re: VP Debate

[quote=digitalghostx";p="62020] it's dam hard for Edwards to make people believe that he and Kerry are really going to make a difference in the War on Terror and Iraq.[/quote]

all i keep hearing from that camp on security is, "We will hunt down and kill the terrorists!" :roll:

how?

Re: VP Debate

[quote=neur0t0xin64";p="61996]Showing up for a breakfast where no votes are cast is clearly no excuse to miss 70% of potential votes. Frankly i'm glad he and Kerry don't show up to vote b/c Kerry = 1st and Edwards = 3rd for most liberal senators decided by a nonpartisan group! Another attempt by liberals to catch Cheney in a "lie" and overseeing the LOGIC!

get real, u guys are going to lose....the american people cant be fooled that easily[/quote]

Jesus, obviously when the two have been running for president, they're going to be missing a lot of votes. What is Cheney's excuse for only showing up twice to lead the Senate? And if you look at the voting record, they've always participated in votes that are close.

Furthermore, the crap about "most liberal senator" is total and utter BULLSHIT. If you ask me, neither of them are liberal enough, and after listening to Edwards last night go on about "gay marriage" you are a total and complete idiot if you think he is a liberal.

Instead of repeating, tired, incorrect Republican talking points, why don't you try doing a little research and find things out for yourself. You can start with this site right here: [url]http://mostliberalsenator.blogspot.com/[/url]

Re: VP Debate

[quote=Jenks";p="62064][quote=digitalghostx";p="62020] it's dam hard for Edwards to make people believe that he and Kerry are really going to make a difference in the War on Terror and Iraq.[/quote]

all i keep hearing from that camp on security is, "We will hunt down and kill the terrorists!" :roll:

how?[/quote]

Why don't you try reading his website? It's rather simple to remember: [url]http://www.johnkerry.com[/url]

Here is an excerpt from his plan against Global Terrorism:

V. DENY TERRORISTS SAFE HAVENS AND NEW RECRUITS. John Kerry knows that to win the war on terror, America must use all elements of national power to deny terrorists new havens and recruits and prevent terrorists from poisoning minds around the world. America must show that we are willing to use our economic power for the common good; to defeat abject poverty and disease that destroy lives and create failed states in every part of the world.

Work to Prevent Weak and Failing States from Becoming Terrorist Havens. Kerry will work with our allies and the international community to develop comprehensive strategies to strengthen weak states and secure and rebuild failed states around the world.

Strategically Target Assistance to Weak and Failed States. As president, Kerry will provide strategically focused assistance to weak and failed states to help them build democratic institutions, better secure their territories, and achieve broad-based economic development. Kerry will help them increase their capacity to meet the needs of their citizens for decent, basic education, basic health and disease prevention services and support the development of small and medium-size enterprises. Develop Rapid Response Capacity. John Kerry will develop an enlarged country-in-transition fund to enable the U.S. government to respond swiftly to crises and opportunities in weak and failed states. With our allies, we will also support initiatives to increase the capacity of developing countries and regional organizations such as the African Union and ASEAN to respond rapidly with peacekeeping force to prevent and resolve conflicts. The United States must provide the leadership needed for this effort to really succeed. Refocus Diplomatic, Intelligence and Other Assets on Failed States. The 2002 National Security Strategy stated: ?America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones.? Yet the Bush administration?s distribution of our diplomatic, intelligence and other assets does not reflect that. A Kerry administration will ensure that America has the best intelligence possible on weak and failed states. Share Burden with Allies and International Community. America cannot bear the burden of strengthening weak states and securing and rebuilding failed states around the world alone ? our allies, regional powers and international institutions must also do their share. Kerry will rebuild our alliances and bring others in the international community together to address the risks that failed states pose to people all over the world. Lead a Global Education Initiative. Under a new Global Education Initiative, America will lead the world to provide universal basic education by 2015. It is critical that we not only seek to empower reformers to achieve quality public education through the Arab and Muslim world ? where a lack of funding has helped foster radical schools that teach hate ? but that we also support a global effort for free universal education throughout Africa and the developing world. Increasing education in poor nations ? especially for girls ? has been shown to be extremely effective in raising incomes, reducing infant mortality and preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. Cancel the Debt of the World?s Poorest Countries. John Kerry supports wiping clean the debts of the world?s most heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) that are reforming their economies and investing in their human capital. Debt relief will give them a fresh start to invest in health, education, and infrastructure. And Kerry will direct his Secretary of the Treasury to initiate negotiations with the Paris Club of Official Creditors, the World Bank, the IMF, and others with the goal of modifying the Enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative to provide substantially greater debt reduction to a broader set of poor countries. Kerry understands that debt cancellation should not come at the expense of future foreign aid flows to poor countries. Address Global Health Priorities. Epidemics can decimate societies and contribute to weak and failed states, which can become safe havens and recruiting grounds for terrorists and other criminal elements. John Kerry will invest more in health care infrastructure in weak and failing states, and dedicate greater attention and increased resources to training health care professionals and community health care workers. As president, Kerry will double the U.S. funding to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to $30 billion by 2008 and encourage other countries, corporations and foundations to do their share. And in a Kerry administration, global health policy will be driven by science instead of ideology. VI. SUPPORT DEMOCRACIES IN THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD. We must support the development of free and democratic societies in the Arab and Muslim world to win the war of ideas. While countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan, have at times helped us in the hunt for individual terrorists, they have not always been good allies in turning back the terrorists? cause. In a Kerry administration, America will be clear with repressive governments in the region that we expect to see them change, not just for our sake but for their own survival. And Kerry will restore America?s moral authority by leading by example and by promoting respect for the rule of law.

Launch a Major Public Diplomacy Initiative. Kerry will lead a major initiative in public diplomacy to train a new generation of American scholars, diplomats, military officers, and democracy builders who understand the Arab and Muslim world, just as we built our knowledge of the Soviet empire during the Cold War. And Kerry will open diplomatic posts and invest in academic programs, scholarships and exchanges with the Muslim world so we can build better bridges and craft more effective policies. Convene a Summit to Increase Mutual Cooperation. As president, John Kerry will convene ? and attend ? a summit with European partners and leaders from the Muslim world to discuss how we can collectively work together to establish new programs aimed at increasing mutual understanding, economic growth, and the fight against terror. VII. RESTORE ALLIANCES TO COMBAT TERRORIST NETWORKS ACROSS THE GLOBE. Kerry will ensure that America always remains the world?s paramount military power. He will also restore alliances to magnify our power, and increase intelligence and law enforcement coordination so that we can stop terrorists hidden around the world before they can strike at us.

:lol: that stuff is funny.

you go JFK!

Re: VP Debate

Considering the fact that we're already doing most of those things - I'd say Kerry's got the right idea.

Re: VP Debate

I liked the fact that Cheney quoted the wrong website...

[quote] The two candidates performed true to their highly contrasting characters. Mr Cheney was downbeat and occasionally contemptuous of his opponent, declining to address at all many criticisms involving Halliburton's no-bid contracts in Iraq. Instead he simply pointed the audience to a website - although, embarrassingly, the address he gave - factcheck.com - was incorrect, and linked to an anti-Bush site run by the philanthropist George Soros, rather than to the site he meant to promote, factcheck.org.[/quote] [url]www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,,1320825,00.html[/url]

Re: VP Debate

That was great - Cheney accidentally telling the nation to check out a anti-Bush website. He probably lobbed some f-bombs around after he figured that one out.

Re: VP Debate

Edwards and Cheney have such different styles, it is tough, I think, to say that one person "won," b/c it is difficult to be sure you are comparing apples to apples. Cheney (unlike his boss) is extremely well-versed in policy issues and came armed with the information you would expect from someone with his kind of experience. He presented his responses in a very straight-forward, matter-of-fact sort of way that gives him an air of credibility. I thought the format played to his strengths well.

Edwards, on the other hand, brings a more upbeat air and had decent enough grip on the issues to talk intelligently. I also found him to be more persuassive, likeable, and forward-looking, but he didn't say as much substantively as Cheney.

I would call the debate a tie or maybe a slight edge to Cheney for his obvious vast knowledge, but I think that actually gives the edge to Edwards in the big picture in that there was more on the line for Bush/Cheney. The Bush/Cheney campaign has been trying to regain their traction since the first debate. By not getting his ass kicked and holding his own, I think Edwards accomplished what he needed to accomplish by not allowing Bush/Cheney to regain any momentum.

One could argue that Cheney stopped the bleeding, but it will ultimately be much ado about nothing because there is such a short news cycle before the next debate tomorrow and not a lot of time to really allow Bush or Cheney to capitalize on it. I think history will ultimately look back on this debate and say that it played very little role in the outcome of this election.

My $.02, anyway.

Re: VP Debate

[quote=Jenks";p="62064] all i keep hearing from that camp on security is, "We will hunt down and kill the terrorists!" :roll:

how?[/quote]

Probably roughly the same way that Bush has, ultimately. There is one thing that Kerry brings to the table that Bush cannot, however, and that is the [b]potential[/b] to bring other countries into the fold. I don't know that Kerry will be successful, but Bush cannot now go to other countries that are not currently part of the Iraq effort, for example, and ask them to participate because he has already burned too many bridges. Kerry can at least ask.

Bush cannot (and would not) go to Germany, for example, and say, "look, this whole war thing was a collossal mistake, but I've fucked up things so badly now that it affects your security as well, so could you please come help us?" Kerry is not bound by his own past in this regard and may be able to restore some credibility to the effort. Even though he has said "wrong war, wrong time," (as Bush pointed out ad nauseum) he can still make the case that the situation is fucked up without really losing too much face, that an international effort is needed to unfuck it, and that it is in other countries' best interests to do so to regain some stability in the Mideast.

Looking beyond Iraq to the global war on terror, I think the same principle applies. Bush has destroyed the "we're all in this together" vibe that was going on in the world following 9/11 and pushed away countries who could be strong allies in gathering and sharing information and rounding up terrorists wherever they may be. As long as Bush is in office, the anti-Bush, anti-American feeling around the world will not help our efforts in this regard.

Can Kerry actually bring back global respectability to the USA and restore old alliances? I honestly don't know -- but I am certain that Bush cannot.

Re: VP Debate

[quote=LobsterClan";p="62094][quote=neur0t0xin64";p="61996]Showing up for a breakfast where no votes are cast is clearly no excuse to miss 70% of potential votes. Frankly i'm glad he and Kerry don't show up to vote b/c Kerry = 1st and Edwards = 3rd for most liberal senators decided by a nonpartisan group! Another attempt by liberals to catch Cheney in a "lie" and overseeing the LOGIC!

get real, u guys are going to lose....the american people cant be fooled that easily[/quote]

Jesus, obviously when the two have been running for president, they're going to be missing a lot of votes. What is Cheney's excuse for only showing up twice to lead the Senate? And if you look at the voting record, they've always participated in votes that are close.

Furthermore, the crap about "most liberal senator" is total and utter BULLSHIT. If you ask me, neither of them are liberal enough, and after listening to Edwards last night go on about "gay marriage" you are a total and complete idiot if you think he is a liberal.

Instead of repeating, tired, incorrect Republican talking points, why don't you try doing a little research and find things out for yourself. You can start with this site right here: [url]http://mostliberalsenator.blogspot.com/[/url][/quote]

Even if the 70% absent voting record was for the last 6 months, he should still be TRYING to do his job...that is cast votes and attend committee meetings for his state. Becoming a senator isn't a free ticket to waste taxpayer money on a political campaign. Again, all the liberals will do is oversee the LOGIC. Why u guys can't accept facts for what they are is beyond me. Its time to get off the sinking ship and forget the democratic party. During the 90s, it wasn't very good to be a republican if u wanted the presidency...This decade will continue to belong to the republicans, until the democrats stop trying to scare/b.s. their way into the presidency.

BTW...Edwards isn't stupid. He knows that 1% of Americans would bother to vote on gay marriage, and lots more than that will vote against it. To side with gay marriage is political suicide.

I will concede that however they decide "most liberal" and "most conservative" is rather subjective...so i'll let it go....But maybe if the guys showed up a bit more to vote we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Also, overwhelming support to authorize going to war is HARDLY a close vote! They should've skipped out and gone windsurfing or gotten a fake tan.

In today's world: Liberals are Booers :cry: , Conservatives are Doers :WinkNSmi:

Re: VP Debate

[quote] Why u guys can't accept facts for what they are is beyond me. Its time to get off the sinking ship and forget the democratic party. During the 90s, it wasn't very good to be a republican if u wanted the presidency...This decade will continue to belong to the republicans, until the democrats stop trying to scare/b.s. their way into the presidency.[/quote]

Well guess what, buddy? According to the latest poll, it is in fact the Democrats with the lead, 50-46. [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20041007/ap_on_el_pr/president_ap_poll[/url]

Really ridiculous how an incumbent, lame duck president with an under 50 approval rating is somehow considered the favorite, despite history showing those types of presidents always lose.

As for your bs and lying, that is all the Republican party does. I mentioned several places where Cheney was guilty of that exact sentiment, and no one has yet tried to refute those facts. I'd love to see you try and spin some of the bullshit he puked up, like the way he claimed never mentioning a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Re: VP Debate

[quote] BTW...Edwards isn't stupid. He knows that 1% of Americans would bother to vote on gay marriage, and lots more than that will vote against it. To side with gay marriage is political suicide.[/quote]

Since you obviously weren't paying any attention-- Cheney actually believes the matter of gay marriage should be left up to the states.

Bigotry of any kind is immoral, and wrong.

Re: VP Debate

[quote=neur0t0xin64";p="62587] This decade will continue to belong to the republicans, until the democrats stop trying to scare/b.s. their way into the presidency.[/quote]

You've got to be kidding me. The republican platform this election cycle is "Scare ya and sell ya insurance" -- "the terrorists are coming, but we'll keep you safe." The whole platform is based upon fear.

You may think the democratic ticket is based upon BS, and that's your prerogative to think that, but to suggest that the dems are running on scare tactics is to be blind to what your own party is doing...

i think you are all full of shit with propaganda and your who-ha-ho-ha's.

I am still waiting for a REAL president not these fucking opposite scums.

Your Welcome.

i think you are all full of shit with propaganda and your who-ha-ho-ha's.

I am still waiting for a REAL president not these fucking opposite scums.

Your Welcome.

i think you are all full of shit with propaganda and your who-ha-ho-ha's.

I am still waiting for a REAL president not these fucking opposite scums.

Your Welcome.

bah.

i think you are all full of shit with propaganda and your who-ha-ho-ha's.

I am still waiting for a REAL president not these fucking opposite scums.

Your Welcome.

Mixu & BSully, the truth is that when George Soros heard Cheney say the wrong site, he being the billionaire that he is immediately went and bought that domain name, which then forwarded the browser onto Soros's own anti-bush site. I agree the irony of how it all happened is comical. But for Soros to go and buy that site immediately after shows the pervasive politics the democrats are playing here, very typical.

Toasty, so the thing Kerry brings to the table more than Bush is 'the potential to bring other countries into the fold.' Can you please tell me what countries your talking about??? And also what planet your from, because it cant be earth. Hmm your saying Bush has burned so many bridges he can't 'ask' for help??? Toasty let me remind you that there are STILL 30 different countries involved in the rebuilding process of Iraq, my prediction is after Bush is reelected others will continue to join, such as Egypt and Pakistan, who have just had a suicide bomber kill many of their citizens, where Al-Queda claimed responsibility. Tell me this please, how can John Kerry go to any country in the world and ask for help when he himself has said on record hundreds of times atleast, that it is the 'WRONG WAR WRONG PLACE WRONG TIME' Does that make any sense to you at all? WRONG WAR=EVERYONE COME HELP PUT YOUR SOLDIERS IN HARMS WAY???????!!???? WTF kind of critical thinking skills is that TOASTY?? You talk about GLOBAL RESPECTABILITY? HAHAHAHAHAH respected by who? GERMANY who YOU just mentioned. They are our secret enemy along with France, who the fuck cares what they think of us!!!! We do billions of dollars in commerce with them, fine, but do you think they give a shit about us politically? They're always going to hate us, not because of BUSH, not because of KERRY, but for more deep rooted reasons. France and Germany have BOTH OFFICIALLY said, 'NO MATTER WHAT, WE ARE NOT SENDING TROOPS' why? Because they lack any type of BALLS to stand up for freedom and democracy, and they're more worried that their involvement in OIL FOR FOOD, which will surface very shortly in my opinion, will be brought to light. Both were PALS with SADDAM and IRAQ'S OIL!! Kerry has undermined every country currently involved in the rebuilding process, has disrespected the new president ALAWI, disrespected the loss of life by the Iraqiis, and every other country that is contributing in the coalition. YOU, toasty, THINK that is whats going to open the doors for the world to come and help the US, with that kind of attitude. Please come out of your hypnosis.

[quote=PhAntoM MeNaCe";p="63682]Mixu & BSully, the truth is that when George Soros heard Cheney say the wrong site, he being the billionaire that he is immediately went and bought that domain name, which then forwarded the browser onto Soros's own anti-bush site. [/quote]

Wow, you've really never met a mistruth you didn't like, eh? Your "facts" are incredibly mistaken, and the real situation is explained quite clearly at this location: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/06/debate.website.ap/index.html[/url]

"But Cheney cited FactCheck.com, a for-profit advertising site based in the Cayman Islands.

The company decided to redirect traffic to the Soros site after it became inundated with hits -- about 100 a second after the debate, John Berryhill, a Philadelphia lawyer for FactCheck.com, said Wednesday.

"This was to relieve stress on the service and to express a political point of view," said Berryhill, who spoke with the site's administrators shortly after the debate ended.

They picked Soros not only for his political views, Berryhill said, but because the billionaire could afford the costly deluge of hits the site would receive in the wake of the debate. Plus, the site administrators didn't want to point surfers to a candidate's site that was asking for money.

Web site operators typically pay fees to the companies that host their sites. The more hits a site receives, the more its operator pays.

Soros was not advised of the switch and did not know it had taken place until Wednesday, said a spokesman, Jeremy Ben-Ami."

Hahahah Lobster you have to be kidding right. Oh ok, good one man, I thought you actually thought for a second that your CNN article was a fact. Lobster, come on, again I think your critical thinking skills are on hiatus. Your saying that BY CHANCE, minutes after Cheyney gave the plug for factcheck.com, George Soros(who absolutely HATES President BUSH, has given shit loads of money to moveon.org, is a proud liberal billionaire, and has made himself into a veracious foot soldier for ANTI BUSH campaigners) COINCIDENTALLY here Lobster, a fact check for encyclopedia site, moveon.com, who happens to share the same 'political views' as SOROS....ARBITRARILY redirected millions of hits to the site to SOROS, who CLAIMS he knew nothing about it. Lobster are you having an INNER BATTLE with your own conscience??! Your so anti BUSH your being led off the cliff of NIAGARA FALLS on a TANDEM with your boy TOASTY. Stop starting fires, and walking away as they burn.

Re: VP Debate

Did you even read the article? The site "factcheck.com" was a for-profit advertising site, and they decided to link their site to Soros's site right after the debate, because they liked his politics, and they didn't want to direct to a site to anyone asking for money.

Factcheck.com is/was based in the Cayman Islands, and if you do/did a whois on them, you get this information: Registrant: Name Administration Inc. (BVI) Box 10518 A.P.O. Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands B.W.I. KY

Are you so anti-Kerry that you can't even read an article that easily explains your misguided beliefs?

[quote=PhAntoM MeNaCe";p="63682] Toasty, so the thing Kerry brings to the table more than Bush is 'the potential to bring other countries into the fold.' Can you please tell me what countries your talking about??? And also what planet your from, because it cant be earth. Hmm your saying Bush has burned so many bridges he can't 'ask' for help??? Toasty let me remind you that there are STILL 30 different countries involved in the rebuilding process of Iraq, my prediction is after Bush is reelected others will continue to join, such as Egypt and Pakistan, who have just had a suicide bomber kill many of their citizens, where Al-Queda claimed responsibility. Tell me this please, how can John Kerry go to any country in the world and ask for help when he himself has said on record hundreds of times atleast, that it is the 'WRONG WAR WRONG PLACE WRONG TIME' Does that make any sense to you at all? WRONG WAR=EVERYONE COME HELP PUT YOUR SOLDIERS IN HARMS WAY???????!!???? WTF kind of critical thinking skills is that TOASTY?? You talk about GLOBAL RESPECTABILITY? HAHAHAHAHAH respected by who? GERMANY who YOU just mentioned. They are our secret enemy along with France, who the fuck cares what they think of us!!!! We do billions of dollars in commerce with them, fine, but do you think they give a shit about us politically? They're always going to hate us, not because of BUSH, not because of KERRY, but for more deep rooted reasons. France and Germany have BOTH OFFICIALLY said, 'NO MATTER WHAT, WE ARE NOT SENDING TROOPS' why? Because they lack any type of BALLS to stand up for freedom and democracy, and they're more worried that their involvement in OIL FOR FOOD, which will surface very shortly in my opinion, will be brought to light. Both were PALS with SADDAM and IRAQ'S OIL!! Kerry has undermined every country currently involved in the rebuilding process, has disrespected the new president ALAWI, disrespected the loss of life by the Iraqiis, and every other country that is contributing in the coalition. YOU, toasty, THINK that is whats going to open the doors for the world to come and help the US, with that kind of attitude. Please come out of your hypnosis.[/quote]

30 countries in the coalition? Have you seen who they are? Only the US and the UK really count of those countries. There are a lot of major countries who will help rebuild Iraq in a legitimate fashion rather contravene international law which the 'coalition' did. And sending troops is not the only way of helping...

Europe doesn't hate the US. But there is a problem with a US president who thinks he can 'police' the world and do what the hell he likes without any international support, approval or agreement.

Clearly you've fallen for Bush's 'freedom and democracy' rhetoric... and that's all it is. Rhetoric.

I'm not sure exactly how Kerry has disrespected the loss of life by Iraqis but he didn't cause the death of 10,000+ Iraqis for a war which has contravened international law and opened up the possibility for the so-called 'rogue states' to launch pre-emptive strikes against whoever they wish. Is that making the world a safer place? I think not.

[quote=PhAntoM MeNaCe";p="63682] Toasty let me remind you that there are STILL 30 different countries involved in the rebuilding process of Iraq, my prediction is after Bush is reelected others will continue to join, such as Egypt and Pakistan, who have just had a suicide bomber kill many of their citizens, where Al-Queda claimed responsibility. [/quote]

Dude, as mixu pointed out, even though there may be 30 countries in the technical sense, this coalition bears no similarity to the coalition from the 1991 Gulf War. When we ousted Saddam from the tiny nation of Kuwait, we did so with around 500,000 troops total. In this effort to invade and now occupy the far larger nation of Iraq, we've got around 160,000 troops, 140,000 of which are Americans.

Here's the breakdown of troops:

[img=left:39f0ab836b]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/daily/graphics/coalition2_071504.gif[/img:39f0ab836b]

This chart does not mention Spain, The Dominican Republic, Honduras, or Nicaragua, which have already pulled out. Now I'm not looking to denigrade the efforts of our allies, but we've got to be realistic about the nature and composition of this coalition.

[quote=PhAntoM MeNaCe";p="63682] Tell me this please, how can John Kerry go to any country in the world and ask for help when he himself has said on record hundreds of times atleast, that it is the 'WRONG WAR WRONG PLACE WRONG TIME' Does that make any sense to you at all? WRONG WAR=EVERYONE COME HELP PUT YOUR SOLDIERS IN HARMS WAY???????!!???? [/quote]

Easy:

"This isn't my mess, but it is a mess, and it is a mess that affects the security of us all. It is in the world's best interests to bring some stability to this region, and we need your help to do it."

I'm not saying it will work, but it is something that Bush does not have the option of doing anymore -- Kerry simply has more options at his disposal...

[quote=PhAntoM MeNaCe";p="63682]France and Germany have BOTH OFFICIALLY said, 'NO MATTER WHAT, WE ARE NOT SENDING TROOPS' why? Because they lack any type of BALLS to stand up for freedom and democracy, and they're more worried that their involvement in OIL FOR FOOD, which will surface very shortly in my opinion, will be brought to light. Both were PALS with SADDAM and IRAQ'S OIL!! [/quote]

Seems Germany is rethinking its policy on deployment of troops in Iraq:

[quote] Germany might deploy troops in Iraq if conditions there change, Peter Struck, the German defence minister, indicated on Tuesday in a gesture that appears to provide backing for John Kerry, the US Democratic presidential challenger.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Struck departed from his government?s resolve not to send troops to Iraq under any circumstances, saying: ?At present I rule out the deployment of German troops in Iraq. In general, however, there is no one who can predict developments in Iraq in such a way that he could make a such a binding statement [about the future].? [/quote]

Also:

[quote] Germany announced last month a shipment of 20 armoured vehicles to the Iraqi military, as part of Berlin's increased involvement in Nato-led reconstruction efforts [in Iraq]. [/quote]

[url]http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0b76459e-1c80-11d9-8d72-00000e2511c8.html[/url]