Justice

Eh, I think it's a good one. It does almost completely coincide with the real shift in the candidates from Pro war to Anti war. Bush doing a good job about the WMDs. And he's done with the grin at least. Good smirk.

Whoa. Talk about a hardball.

Bush is coming off MUCH better this time around. He's like me, it seems; he has to move around when he speaks. edit: Excellent defense of the tax cut.

Kerry's doing good off the start.

*claims victory over all*

And that doesn't seem the least bit odd to you? That every intelligence agency in the world was wrong? Am I missing the clause in the Constitution where the President is responsible for this?

I saw directions for the alien spacecraft when I read it...but it may have just been the peyote I'm beginning to like you more and more.

Was that faulty intelligence too? The question isn't whether or not Saddam should have been taken out or not, the question is, did our President purposefully mislead the American people in order to go to war? The Senate Committee has said that he didn't alter or press the CIA for bad information. He was given information and told it was solid. Just read the last report the CIA issued on Iraq before the war. This has been dicussed before. In all likelihood, they probably didn't mislead the public on purpose. It's not their fault that, well, every intelligence agency in the world turned out to be WRONG.

Loss, for all his posts in this thread, has my complete respect right now.

I think if you look REALLY hard, you can see the link to all the "World Domination" and "Turning the world into a slave market for global consumerism" in there.

For those of you who just don't get what I'm doing or what the hell these pictures mean, click here. And for serious content, click here.

There are dumbfucks in this forum, but you're not one of them (heh, you don't even come close to some we've had in the past) But, seriously, this is some silly stuff. There is a group of neo-cons, therefore they must have some sort of insidious conspiratorial plan to trap us in some sort of deformed facist state? Come on, that has nothing to do with Bush, its just idiocy of the Illuminati or Mason level. Now if you talk about REAL conspiracies to circumvent election laws with 527s you might get some more credit. But if you want to talk about sinister facist cabals, just do us all a favor and post it at Democratic Underground.

yeah.. riiiiiiiiight Yeah, seriously. He doesn't look a day over 25.

By that i gather: worst = opposing the uniform mind set of this folder. You don't have to spell it out.

The underlying threat that is oh so prothetically coming to fruition.

The underlying threat that is oh so prothetically coming to fruition. Well, it's just the Wilsonian Democracy theory. Frankly, I can understand why it's no-sold: It's completely conspiratorial. Where did the orignal quote come from?

Oh come on... No Kevin Nash? *Ducks behind cover before trash can be hurled at him*

*nods* Indeed. *Disappears*

If they are published by someone who isn't Michael Moore, well, maybe you'll have something. But until they reach a credible source, I don't really consider them to be too reliable. I find it hard to believe that these people all fell deaf ears until Michael Moore found them. And frankly, I think it could hold up in court. Well, it'll hold up better than the elastic on Mikey's underwear does. *Rimshot*

Well, it seems to me that Cheney had no problems going off-topic at certain points throughout the debate. In fact, I distinctly remember Cheney being asked a question about the situation in Israel, saying that he "wanted to go back to the previous question" that referred to Halliburton, then launched into a nonsensical personal attack on Edwards' voting records. He already went completely off-topic in this response from the original question. Why not use that time to actually address something in the debate - LIKE the Halliburton charges brought up only a moment ago - instead of going for the cheap low blow, which had become a trend throughout the night. Ugh, you are hopeless. 1) All the claims Edwards made about Haliburton would take MUCH longer than 30 seconds to address. There's no point in wasting time on something that he couldn't possibly explain in 30 seconds. 2) He directed them to a third-party observer rather than defend himself. Instead of him looking like he's trying to explain himself, he's saying "These people have the facts and are non-partisan. Look to them for real answers." Using non-partisan observers as proof lends to the credibility of one's self. Hell, even saying that it was the University of Pennsylvania that was doing it helps him out a little as it makes it seem professional and unbiased. I don't see your huge problem with him going off-topic. He never seemed too off-topic to me. How can you even defend Edwards going back to Halliburton when he got completely called out on Medicare? Completely wrong mind-frame? It's a waste of time to use 30 seconds to try and explain something that'll take a full 2 minutes. He did the right thing: Punt to a 3rd-party source to defend him so he doesn't come off as looking partisan. "Hi! I'm grasping for straws! What are you doing?" Just because he directed them to the wrong website means crap. This shows how desperate you are to believe that Edwards didn't get schooled last night. He gave a wrong web-address. It happens. If it was the worst mistake of the night, he is perhaps one of the best debaters around today. I can't believe you are trying to cling on to this weak, weak criticism as though it is salient. No, you are just searching for something to cling to right now. Very poor form. But... it was never asked as a question. He gave his answer and tried to stick to the topics. I thought you didn't like him getting off topic? *Weeps* Too bad that's the only record he has, right? Oh wait, he has that whole VP thing... Frankly, these are weak criticisms. Consider Washington and Lincoln technically don't have national holidays, why should MLK? They were President, weren't they? No offense to the greatness that MLK represents, but frankly there are others who might be in line before him to get a holiday. It's a pretty weak criticism. The other three are just extraneous. It doesn't tell me anything on his own policy decisions. Frankly, Cheney's criticisms were more focused on the topics at hand, with his brilliant smack on Kerry voting for the Medicare thing in 1997 to his complete diss on Edward's attendance. Edward's attacks were weak because they had no focus and no real substance with the subject matter at hand. Cheney looked like a prize-fighter with his jabs and punches while Edwards came off amateurish with wild, unfocused punches. I believe I linked the article a previous post. Anyways, if you want to focus on bullshit Edwards was handing out in desperation. And on the no-bid: The Army did that, not Cheney. In all likelihood it probably has to do with the fact that, well, Halliburton did the job in the first Gulf War, why not give it to them again? And I'm fairly sure that they're no longer under serious investigation, but I could be wrong. The main problem with the mandidates is actually that many schools didn't send in the proper paperwork in on time, meaning a lot of schools that would have gotten funding didn't because their principal didn't get off their ass. I get this from my mother who works for Detroit Public Schools. Article Of course, this suggests that it was property costs going down, health care rising, and state-aid going down (Since NCLB is Federal, isn't it?), that kind puts a damper on that stuff. Okay, how about this? He brought facts that didn't mean anything in the context of the actual debate at hand. That better? The voting record is very weak. It didn't do anything because those policies don't mean anything in the context of the debate. It came off as Edwards looking desperate and trying to pin heat on Cheney because he had nothing legitimate to bring up about him. The entire criticism is that their beliefs don't change a fucking thing! You obviously don't understand the entire nature of the debate on Gay Marriage: You can't have civil unions with benefits. It just doesn't work that way; there are too many laws and other such things that would have to be re-written. It just wouldn't work. It's Marriage or bust. Kerry straddling the issue, try to play both sides just makes him look pandering. Does it offend the least amount of Americans? Yes. Does he look like he's doing it with honest intentions? Hell no, and that's what Bob and I find sleazy about it. ...? Seriously, the only power he to do is give the President his opinion. I'm sure he has more than once. Just because the President *gasp* take on his opinion doesn't mean that there is upheaval in the White House, or that Cheney isn't accomplishing anything, it just means they differ on ONE ISSUE. Jesus, make a mountain out of a molehill. And step on Gay Rights? What can he do with them? Con Amendment didn't pass, and will never pass, so what else can he do? It's all up to the courts now. Frankly, no one's stance on Gays matters right now outside of the SCOTUS's. Unfortunately you just don't understand that. You are unbelievable. I can't believe that you would regard Cheney's daughter as fair game. You just don't get it, do you? That's Cheney's personal business. Between him and his family. Edwards trying to bring that up was a sleazy Trial Lawyer trick. What if Cheney decided to use Edwards' son as a reason behind the ligitation crisis? That's unfair because it's bringing up something very personal and private out onto the playing field. It's sad to see a Democrat so desperate that he would try to call victory on Edwards bring up Cheney's daughter. He went back to it like Bush went back to "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time". He didn't go back to it because it was part of the subject, he went to it because he couldn't defend himself in the subject area and had to retreat to his Safety Blanket issue (Which he got called out on big-time with the entire 1997 vote). I'll get the middle section in a little bit. I'm trying to finish this before I rush off to class... ... Seriously, his closing statement was horrid. It was just Trial Lawyer bullcrap trying to draw a cheap pop. This is exactly what Bob means when he is all rhetoric, no substance. Just about everyone here admitted that Cheney was in control the entire debate. While Edwards got in maybe a decent shot or two, Cheney took him to task many, many more times than Edwards did Cheney. The fact that you are fighting this so virulently is amazing. Truly amazing. Frankly, it wasn't that effective. It came off as a card-trick to try and distract everyone from the fact that the only thing they have a 'planned' is continually saying 'we have a plan'. It was all fluffy goodness. Cheney brought facts and intelligence to his, which made his more substantial and, frankly, more effective. He brought up pertinent subjects (War on Terror as per usual) and frankly, it had more value than Edward's sob story. I guess, though, you can't see through the weak emotional appeal, though. Alone, it might be good. But after getting stomped in the debate, it came off very weak. I'm fairly sure Bob picked up on the real meaning of the speech, or what it was supposed to mean. I highly doubt that you are his intellectual superior. The fact that you think Edwards used a wide-array of facts throughout the debate shows how badly biased you are. Cheney came off as far more informed as Edwards. Edwards came off as much more nervous than Cheney. Sometimes he seemed very desperate to change the subject (Kerry voting for the 1997 Medicare thing and how he himself avoids taxes, which immediately turned into a Halliburton attack). He didn't seem like he could focus anything he had to create a coherent message against Cheney; Cheney made cutting and clear arguments, Edwards didn't. Not only this, it seemed like every time Cheney answered a question, he brought something new and interesting. Edwards seemed to constantly look back at talking points from the last debate. He looked like Bush from the last debate in that regard. Hell, he even broke the damn rules, somethign that made him seem desperate and very inexperienced. Frankly, Edwards came off as an amateur. Cheney came off as a master debater. Too bad you can't do the same. You are one of the few, proud liberals who REFUSES to conceded defeat even after his candidate got soundly schooled in how to debate. Too bad. The fact that he brought it up at all was extremely low. I'm sure if he brought up Edwards' son, no matter how 'politely' he did it, he'd be chastised for it. John Edwards seriously lost my respect with that remark. You keep believing that, buddy. Hope is on the way, right?

Well it is not like anyone else is any rush to have these voices of descent heard. I mean I do agree, that if it came from someone else other then Moore, then maybe more notice would be taken, however if Michael Moore is the only current means to get these voices heard, then so be it. Of course, maybe it's the fact that there AREN'T too many voices of dissent in the first place. Maybe I'm just shaving with Occam's Razor too much...