Cheney vs. Edwards: A mighty fight between the parties' best.

[Bhs Crew]

Tomorrow is the debate that we’ve all been waiting for.

In the Red corner is Dick "the President" Cheney. As the most powerful Vice President ever, Cheney is the mind behind many of Bush’s policies and is a towering figure in the Republican Party. An expert in many fields, he is expected to state his points in a cold factual manner, regardless of how factual they may actually be. You will hear him lay out the state of the world and wonder how anyone could be blind and ignorant enough to disagree. He will tell you how to save the country from destruction, he will tell you not to support the terrorists; finally he will leave you with a choice, and if you love your country you will make the right decision.

In the Blue corner we have John “Silver-tongue” Edwards. A rising star, Edwards has honed his speeches to woo even the most stubborn swing-voter. Fast on his feet, he is expected to work his charismatic powers to make people yearn for the future he promises. His smiling positive attacks will leave you with a warm happy dissatisfaction with the current administration. John Edwards is one of you, and he is offering a chance to make the country great, why would you turn him down?

We will hear the presidential candidates’ positions laid out better then they possibly could. We will hear the other side attacked in a manner that would make Joe McCarthy weep for joy. You will laugh, you will shout, you will be entertained.

[Sage the Mage]

This is one of those debates on PBS right? If so, then it doesn't matter. Anywho, I expect an attack or hint at the whole trial laywer thing.

[Bhs Crew]

This is one of those debates on PBS right? If so, then it doesn't matter. Anywho, I expect an attack or hint at the whole trial laywer thing.
Nope. This is nationally televised on the major networks in prime time. Just like the Presidential ones.

It is a must see.

[ScytheNoire]

ya, it is a must watch, because if Bush or Kerry, whomever gets elected, continues to ride bicycles, they may end up smacking their heads one of these times and need to be replaced. want to make sure you have the right person as the right-hand man to the president.

[Mastgrr]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/958925.stm

Dick Cheney has made millions from his last few years in the oil industry, and Lieberman couldn't resist the opportunity to turn to his rival, and point out that he has become very much better off during the Clinton years.

Mr Cheney hit back, "I'm pleased to tell you Joe, the government had nothing to do with it".

That's weird. That's coming from a guy that worked for a company that made most of it's money from government contracts...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/tv/bal-to.media29sep29,0,1926068.column

I hope Edwards bring that up. I doubt it though since Kerry didn't bring up the "Bring it on"-quote.

Nevertheless, it's going to be an interesting debate.

[SaroDarksbane]

I might actually watch this one. Cheney/Edwards BS doesn't piss me off like Bush/Kerry BS, for some reason.

Maybe because the VP's are both smarter than the candidates they support. :D

[Oberon]

I'm rooting for Edwards not only because I'm a Democrat but also because he's my Senator.

[ScytheNoire]

I'm rooting for Edwards not only because I'm a Democrat but also because he's my Senator.
don't forget that Cheney is the spawn of Satan. yet another reason to root for Edwards. :)

[Tevush Kasht]

don't forget that Cheney is the spawn of Satan. yet another reason to root for Edwards. :)

I thought it was the other way around

[Mastgrr]

I thought it was the other way around
You'll see who it is when a lizard crawl out of Cheney's eye during the debate (joke shamelessly stolen from Marc Maron).

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Tomorrow is the debate that we’ve all been waiting for.

In the Red corner is Dick "the President" Cheney. As the most powerful Vice President ever, Cheney is the mind behind many of Bush’s policies and is a towering figure in the Republican Party. An expert in many fields, he is expected to state his points in a cold factual manner, regardless of how factual they may actually be. You will hear him lay out the state of the world and wonder how anyone could be blind and ignorant enough to disagree. He will tell you how to save the country from destruction, he will tell you not to support the terrorists; finally he will leave you with a choice, and if you love your country you will make the right decision.

In the Blue corner we have John “Silver-tongue” Edwards. A rising star, Edwards has honed his speeches to woo even the most stubborn swing-voter. Fast on his feet, he is expected to work his charismatic powers to make people yearn for the future he promises. His smiling positive attacks will leave you with a warm happy dissatisfaction with the current administration. John Edwards is one of you, and he is offering a chance to make the country great, why would you turn him down?

We will hear the presidential candidates’ positions laid out better then they possibly could. We will hear the other side attacked in a manner that would make Joe McCarthy weep for joy. You will laugh, you will shout, you will be entertained.


A wonderfully unbiased description Bhs :). Makes me wonder why I should view any political debates at all :uhhuh:.

[Sage the Mage]

If Edwards wins this debate, I bet the Kennedys adopt him :)

[Bhs Crew]

A wonderfully unbiased description Bhs :). Makes me wonder why I should view any political debates at all :uhhuh:.
Because they're so damn entertaining.

Plus they allow you to see of side of candidates rarely seen. They don't know the questions ahead of time (though they do know the debate topic so that helps them) and they have to respond to what their opponent says.

This particular one is important because Cheney is Bush's source of information on the world, and Edwards will be running for President again (regardless of the outcome of this election.) This means how both of them think will affect most likely affect the country in the future.

[Eiger]

I'm looking forward to this one. Cheney is the administration's attack dog, so I'm not expecting him to hold back. Luckily, he's also fast and loose with the facts. So, I'm interested to see how prepared Edwards is and just how quick on his feet he is. He does have a way of stabbing and smiling at the same time, so it'll be interesting to see how effective he ends up being. Should at least be entertaining...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Because they're so damn entertaining.

Plus they allow you to see of side of candidates rarely seen. They don't know the questions ahead of time (though they do know the debate topic so that helps them) and they have to respond to what their opponent says.

This particular one is important because Cheney is Bush's source of information on the world, and Edwards will be running for President again (regardless of the outcome of this election.) This means how both of them think will affect most likely affect the country in the future.


heh, well the way you worded it, it appeared as thoigh the outcome was already revealed. I heard alot about cheney - had a few drinks with this guy doing a doctorate in poly sci (ottawa's a government town). He was one of those guys Eiger would idolize. Yet, when Cheney was brought up, he paled visibly. That alone sparked my interest in this "attack dog" lol..

[Unreg!stered]

I'm most interested to see Edwards in action, and how he handles Cheney. Give that old guy an inch and he'll tear the Edwards-Kerry platform apart. Edwards should make for a good opponent, though, he's pretty fast off the cuff. However, I'm willing to wager after the debate is over Edwards could win easily on charm factor alone. He's got that good ol' Southern boy thing down without any of the negative aspects associated with it. Should be interesting. :thumbsup:

[Lord Chad]

Just in my oppinion Dick Cheney seems like a better vp.He has way more expeirence than edwards.Even though he is evil he is better than edwards.Don't get my wrong I like edwards but Cheny seems better.Plus I think he will win the debate against edwards.

(I won't put up a good arguement if you feel like argueing.I am just going by what my dad said.I also don't look up this stuff I just learn things from my liberal brother and my sorda independant-republican dad and the news and radio.)

[Mastgrr]

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.''

Guess which vice president candidate said that?

Three and an half hours and counting...

[Sage the Mage]

Guess which vice president candidate said that?
Peter Camejo!

There's two ways I see this happening: Edwards wins, or the Nixon-Kennedy debate scenario.

[Bhs Crew]

1:30 to go

[Sage the Mage]

Just checked the preview channel, seems network Fox won't be showing the debate. I'd assume that Fox news is though.

[Bhs Crew]

Fox is showing baseball. Everyone else is showing the debate.

[Bhs Crew]

And it is starting. Go watch it people.

[Sage the Mage]

Edwards is shredding the rules of the debate heh

[SaroDarksbane]

Cheney is owning.

[Sage the Mage]

I'm getting pissed at Edwards for not punching Cheney in the face yet.

[Dragonflame]

Chenny is owning Edwards

[Sage the Mage]

Yeah Cheney is definately seeming more knowledgeable.

[Bhs Crew]

Cheney is owning Edwards

Well in all fairness it's hard to debate a man who can lie that well.

All things being considered I'm really enjoying myself. It's nice to see two smart people discussing things. If you notice here both people are writing when the other is talking. In the Presidential debate only Kerry writes. Bush just flips through cue cards; I guess the Republicans don't trust him with a pen.

They should just make Cheney President; Bush is getting all his info from him anyway. At least then the final decision will be made by someone smart.

We still got more debate left. Back to watching.

[Unreg!stered]

It's been an excellent debate thus far and it again makes me wonder why its Kerry versus Bush instead of Edwards versus Cheney. The two vice presidential candidates put their #1s to shame, even with Edwards buffing the golden idol of Kerry he's created he still shows much, much more intelligence then the lesser of the two Johns. I think it might be a good idea for all us voters to make the switcheroo on the ballots and vote these guys into the presidential office. :D

[Semidi]

Am I the only repulblican loving Dick more than Bush? Wait that doesn't sound right...

O yes, Cheney pwnzzered and all that good stuff.

[Bhs Crew]

It's been an excellent debate thus far and it again makes me wonder why its Kerry versus Bush instead of Edwards versus Cheney. The two vice presidential candidates put their #1s to shame, even with Edwards buffing the golden idol of Kerry he's created he still shows much, much more intelligence then the lesser of the two Johns. I think it might be a good idea for all us voters to make the switcheroo on the ballots and vote these guys into the presidential office. :D

Damn straight. Those guys are two of the best debaters in politics (though I think Cheney might have gotten the upper hand in this one) and they certainly put their #1's debate to shame.

This may not make a huge effect on the election (as they aren't going to be President) but it was very nice to watch. Think to your self how much Kerry would've gotten creamed in a Cheney vs. Kerry, or how one-sided an Edwards vs. Bush would be.

Lastly I just want to say HOW DID ALL YOU DEMOCRATS SUPPORT KERRY OVER EDWARDS. Do you realize how badly Edwards would've destroyed Bush? Anyway my rant is over. Two points for the vice Presidential candidates.

[ScytheNoire]

i think everyone would agree that this debate was pretty much a tie and both sides did a great job.

now call me crazy, many do, but i could swear that Cheney wanted to punch Edwards at the end. i could just see him tensing up and wanting to lay one into Edwards and his smiling face.

i also think Edwards was able to throw off Cheney, just a bit, as Cheney stumbled through some of his debates.

but i thought i was rather rude of Cheney not to thank Edwards for being there at the end like Edwards did of Cheney. that shows a lot of disrespect and arrogance on Cheney's part.

[Semidi]

but i thought i was rather rude of Cheney not to thank Edwards for being there at the end like Edwards did of Cheney. that shows a lot of disrespect and arrogance on Cheney's part.

I thought that was kinda funny. Cheney's a no BS kinda guy, at least him didn't tell John to go **** himself.

[Elorion]

Sorry IMO Cheney pretty much walked away with it. Edwards just looked too much like a kid trying to teach his dad something.

Not a popular position when posting over the internet but I dont see how you guys can say that Cheney and Bush are the liers in this election.

Anyways God bless ya and it was a good debate.

[Booms]

Hehe, it was almost funny when Cheney started to talk about education when the question was about people in poverty.

Ooo, I remeber Elorion! Weren't you the guy who started a bunch of debates, but when presented with cold, hard facts you disappeared? Sort of reminds me of the current administration...say one thing, and once given facts that contradict what you said, stick with your original statement anyways.

[Bhs Crew]

Sorry IMO Cheney pretty much walked away with it. Edwards just looked too much like a kid trying to teach his dad something.

Not a popular position when posting over the internet but I dont see how you guys can say that Cheney and Bush are the liers in this election.

Anyways God bless ya and it was a good debate.
It comes because what they say is often different from the truth. This makes the statements lies. They've been doing this four years.

Not to say that Kerry and Edwards don't, they just haven't been in power for four years doing it so we can pin less on them.

[Elorion]

This may not make a huge effect on the election (as they aren't going to be President) but it was very nice to watch. Think to your self how much Kerry would've gotten creamed in a Cheney vs. Kerry, or how one-sided an Edwards vs. Bush would be.

I dont think you understand how high end politics work these days. Bush didnt loose the first debate because he didnt have the ablility but because he was held back by the way him and his people believe the American people wanted to view Bush. Sometimes it more important to not be the aggressor and be the person that everyone thinks is a nice guy. That's what thier plan was and it didnt work the way they thought it might. Regan lost his first debate but did a total 180 and destroyed his opponite in the second one. Im just hoping Bush and his people chose the right stratagy this go around.

[Elorion]

It comes because what they say is often different from the truth. This makes the statements lies. They've been doing this four years.

Not to say that Kerry and Edwards don't, they just haven't been in power for four years doing it so we can pin less on them.

hehe, Sorry Im not a politician and I dont want to sound rude or like one, but Kerry has been doing it for 30 years in the Senate.

[Elorion]

Hehe, it was almost funny when Cheney started to talk about education when the question was about people in poverty.

Ooo, I remeber Elorion! Weren't you the guy who started a bunch of debates, but when presented with cold, hard facts you disappeared? Sort of reminds me of the current administration...say one thing, and once given facts that contradict what you said, stick with your original statement anyways.
First of all I doubt it was me... secondly it hurts me that you say this expecially without any proof. Your eagerly out to hurt my credibility without even knowing for sure if I was the person your talking about. How could we trust what you say after a statement like that.

[Sage the Mage]

Overall, I think Cheney did better on the foreign policy issues while Edwards got 'em on the domestic. Then again, the way Cheney talked about Afganistan you'd think it was a good place to be at.

The CBS poll suggests that Edwards won, especially among women. I think its the Kennedy-Nixon effect.

First of all I doubt it was me... secondly it hurts me that you say this expecially without any proof. Your eagerly out to hurt my credibility without even knowing for sure if I was the person your talking about. How could we trust what you say after a statement like that.
Here's the last thread you posted in in the Off Topic Forum here. I haven't bothered to read it other than your first post.
http://forums.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=185098&page=2&pp=25

[Elorion]

Overall, I think Cheney did better on the foreign policy issues while Edwards got 'em on the domestic. Then again, the way Cheney talked about Afganistan you'd think it was a good place to be at.

The CBS poll suggests that Edwards won, especially among women. I think its the Kennedy-Nixon effect.

I also agree that Edwards did better on domestic, but I believe Cheney did better on domestic then Edwards did on foreign... so I see it as Cheney winning.

Edwards and Kerry are both good politicians. It just wasnt Edwards night.

[Bhs Crew]

I dont think you understand how high end politics work these days.
Obviously I don't. I guess I'll try to learn something.

Bush didnt loose the first debate because he didnt have the ablility but because he was held back by the way him and his people believe the American people wanted to view Bush.
The man is not a good debater. I don’t know if you noticed this but Cheney, Kerry, and Edwards all had pens so they could write things in the spur of the moment to counter their opponent. Bush did not have a pen and there is a reason for this.

Sometimes it more important to not be the aggressor and be the person that everyone thinks is a nice guy. That's what thier plan was and it didnt work the way they thought it might.
Well that is the problem with most of their plans. They just don't seem to work the way they think they will. If they would just make sound plans to achieve their goals they wouldn't be in this mess in the first place and Bush would be cruising into the finish line 15 points ahead.


Regan lost his first debate but did a total 180 and destroyed his opponite in the second one. Im just hoping Bush and his people chose the right stratagy this go around.
Well that we will see. I'm hoping they don't, but that's why we have these things, cause people differ in opinion.

[Unreg!stered]

Overall, I think Cheney did better on the foreign policy issues while Edwards got 'em on the domestic. Then again, the way Cheney talked about Afganistan you'd think it was a good place to be at.

The CBS poll suggests that Edwards won, especially among women. I think its the Kennedy-Nixon effect.


I wouldn't trust CBS' poll. Their polls that have immediately followed the debates have been Fox News odd in terms of skewing. That's not to say there's any foul play going on at CBS, it's just saying that polling CBS viewers is like polling Fox News viewers, you're bound to get a skewed opinion. ABC had 43-35-17 (Cheney, Edwards, Tie) or something along those lines. I'd wait till tomorrow to get the results from everyone.

I'd have to agree though, Cheney was sharp on foreign policy and he's a master of the half-truth. Edwards was much more believable for domestic issues, and as you said, benefits greatly from the Kennedy-Nixon effect. All in all I'd say it was a tie. Both VP candidates were very, very strong in this debate.

This may not make a huge effect on the election (as they aren't going to be President) but it was very nice to watch. Think to your self how much Kerry would've gotten creamed in a Cheney vs. Kerry, or how one-sided an Edwards vs. Bush would be.

No kidding. If Edwards had been elected the presidential candidate I don't believe there'd be much of a race after the debates. Both parties have made bad decisions for presidential candidates. Democrats chose Kerry over Edwards this year and Republicans chose Bush over McCain...

[Elorion]

The man is not a good debater. I don’t know if you noticed this but Cheney, Kerry, and Edwards all had pens so they could write things in the spur of the moment to counter their opponent. Bush did not have a pen and there is a reason for this.

haha, if you were watching Fox, they showed before the VP debate that Kerry borrowed a pen from Bush before they started the debate. Of course Bush had a pen... why would something like this matter anyways.

Well that is the problem with most of their plans. They just don't seem to work the way they think they will. If they would just make sound plans to achieve their goals they wouldn't be in this mess in the first place and Bush would be cruising into the finish line 15 points ahead.

Sound plans to achieve thier goals... Bush had plans to do many things when he first became president. Then 9/11 happened. He has to make the dissision, Kerry and Edwards only seem to be able to look at thier record and when circumstances force things to change, they say that Bush has lied. Bush has not lied. He has been doing the job of President of the United States of America.

[Booms]

First of all I doubt it was me... secondly it hurts me that you say this expecially without any proof. Your eagerly out to hurt my credibility without even knowing for sure if I was the person your talking about. How could we trust what you say after a statement like that.

Here is your proof (thanks to Sage for posting that link):

Andarcel

HAHAHA, have you been to Iraq or have a clue about what your talking about? Then stfu. Half the stuff you just sad are lies or the oppisite of what really happened. Damn elite media is even on these boards telling us what to think... NOOOOOO

This is where it becomes a pain to argue, because we arent on the same page. From my experiences of viewing Bush and of others views of Bush I dont think Hes has really made some of the mistakes you believe he has. Some of it has turned out bad, but he is not nessisarily at fault. Hell we are blaming Rumsfeld for something that a few soldiers did. He has never met them or any of the people involved and yet we want to blame someone.

Its about blame its not about Bush being a good president.

I realize these quotes are out of context, but I got tired of looking for quotes that didn't involve God and Jesus helping Bush.

EDIT: Okay, seriously, after that last post this one isn't even necessary.

[Bhs Crew]

haha, if you were watching Fox, they showed before the VP debate that Kerry borrowed a pen from Bush before they started the debate. Of course Bush had a pen... why would something like this matter anyways.

You're going to have to clarify. You mean before the Presidential debate? My fox was showing baseball before the VP debate.

Anyway if Bush had a pen (which I looked hard for and couldn't see) I sure didn't see him writing anything.


Sound plans to achieve thier goals... Bush had plans to do many things when he first became president. Then 9/11 happened. He has to make the dissision, Kerry and Edwards only seem to be able to look at thier record and when circumstances force things to change, they say that Bush has lied. Bush has not lied. He has been doing the job of President of the United States of America.
I was talking about his plans after 9/11. If you follow the plans they are unable to achieve their stated goals. I went over this earlier but you weren't here so if I have time tomorrow I'll go into it again.

If you say you're doing something or something is happening and the reality is different then that is a lie. I'm not talking about Bush changing his mind as I have nothing against that. In fact when things aren't working I would like Bush to change his mind more. I got no problem with changing your mind or "flip-flopping" as Bush calls it.

[Sage the Mage]

I wouldn't trust CBS' poll. Their polls that have immediately followed the debates have been Fox News odd in terms of skewing.
Eh I forgot my (aka guy on a keyboard watching the TV) after the "scientific" part of the debate. There's a big margin of error I think.

[Elorion]

Here is your proof (thanks to Sage for posting that link):





I realize these quotes are out of context, but I got tired of looking for quotes that didn't involve God and Jesus helping Bush.

EDIT: Okay, seriously, after that last post this one isn't even necessary.

I didnt bring up God first of all you did. All I said was God bless you. Secondly that was back in Febuary. Why are you guys trying to attack me, instead of talking about the debate.

[Booms]

I didnt bring up God first of all you did. All I said was God bless you. Secondly that was back in Febuary. Why are you guys trying to attack me, instead of talking about the debate.

I was talking about finding quotes from you that weren't about religion and/or Bush+religion. If you would like me to post more quotes to prove this last sentence, just ask.

And my comment was completely true (about you disappearing once Eiger, Andarcel and whoever else started to prove you wrong with facts), so I don't see anything particularly wrong with it...it just provides some context for when people read your replies in this thread.

[Elorion]

Hehe, it was almost funny when Cheney started to talk about education when the question was about people in poverty.

Ooo, I remeber Elorion! Weren't you the guy who started a bunch of debates, but when presented with cold, hard facts you disappeared? Sort of reminds me of the current administration...say one thing, and once given facts that contradict what you said, stick with your original statement anyways.

Im not going through all that again. You guys are mean :rant: . And I didnt start the debate. I got involved in it. I didnt believe anything you said then and I still dont. I was 20 years old and wasnt a great debater and Im still not. Tell you the truth I dont want to be. I dont want to be around people that worship knowledge and the leverage it can have over others.

One thing good did come out of that debate though. It brought me closer to God. I learned about people like you and saw your hate. I have come to see it as a nessisary evil and a tool that God is using for the greater good of the world.

I guess I did bring up God again but didnt you expect me to.. didnt want to disapoint.

[Elorion]

[QUOTE=Booms]I was talking about finding quotes from you that weren't about religion and/or Bush+religion. If you would like me to post more quotes to prove this last sentence, just ask. QUOTE]

I wasnt reffering to what I said in the past, I was reffering to you bringing God in by posting what I said 8 months ago. You brough God into the discussion.

[Sage the Mage]

Dude, you just ****ed up there.

Anywho, are the rest of the debates on PBS? I do expect Bush to draw the next one to be more even just because he's probably working on it now. How does John Kerry hate freedom, love Al-Qaeda, and hate Americans? Find out during the domestic policy debates!

[Booms]

Im not going through all that again. You guys are mean :rant: . And I didnt start the debate. I got involved in it. 1)I didnt believe anything you said then and I still dont. I was 20 years old and wasnt a great debater and Im still not. Tell you the truth I dont want to be. I dont want to be around people that worship knowledge and the leverage it can have over others.

One thing good did come out of that debate though. It brought me closer to God. 2)I learned about people like you and saw your hate. I have come to see it as a nessisary evil and a tool that God is using for the greater good of the world.

3)I guess I did bring up God again but didnt you expect me to.. didnt want to disapoint.

1) Your refusal to believe in facts is just...for lack of a better term, stupid.
2) :lol: at "saw your hate." Buddy, you're overreacting just a wee bit.
3) I think we both know that there was a misunderstanding when it came to the whole "God" thing, so I'll just drop it. You bringing it up again in this thread wasn't what I meant.

[Bhs Crew]

There are two more debates, and I believe both are televised nationally in prime time, on the major networks just like the past two.

The next one is questions from the audience. That should be good. That's on Friday.

Ok, Booms, Elorion, drop it. There's no reason to hash old stuff. A very nice Vice Presidential debate just happened and there's a race going on. Discuss actual issues. Damn.

[GaiaWombat]

Wow. I only got to watch about the first hour or so, but that was quite the debate. At least in the part that I watched, which was mostly about foreign policy, Cheney ripped Edwards to shreds. I thought good ol' Johnny was gonna break and throw a punch or two. Dick Cheney is brilliant, IMO. Edwards is, of course, very intelligent and quite charming as well, but the VP is a machine. He seems a bit evil sometimes, though. :p

Anyway, I feel a little bit torn on this one. I really don't like either candidate a whole lot, although I would vote for Bush just because he's not the only person making the decisions. Kerry really bothers me, and I truly don't think if elected he will do anything better in Iraq than the current administration is doing. However, I don't think Bush comes anywhere close to Ronald Reagan in terms of quality and ideas as a president, and he spends way too much money.

Meh. Lesser of two evils, eh?

/ignore Elorion

[Elorion]

[QUOTE=Bhs Crew]There are two more debates, and I believe both are televised nationally in prime time, on the major networks just like the past two.QUOTE]

[Bhs Crew]

Wow. I only got to watch about the first hour or so, but that was quite the debate. At least in the part that I watched, which was mostly about foreign policy, Cheney ripped Edwards to shreds. I thought good ol' Johnny was gonna break and throw a punch or two. Dick Cheney is brilliant, IMO. Edwards is, of course, very intelligent and quite charming as well, but the VP is a machine. He seems a bit evil sometimes, though. :p

Yeah, there are few that could stand up to Cheney's brilliance. The man knows his strengths and weaknesses and has refined his skills for decades. Say what you want about his propensity for evil, but Cheney is one of the best ever in debates. I give Edwards props for doing far better than Joe Lieberman did four years ago, but he was out matched here (and that has to be an unusual experience for Edwards.)

[Sage the Mage]

Dick Cheney is brilliant, IMO. Edwards is, of course, very intelligent and quite charming as well, but the VP is a machine. He seems a bit evil sometimes, though.

Correction: The VP isn't a machine, he's a cyborg that's fueled by eating babies. Get your facts straight.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

heh, I've just read the transcript. The difference between the two was quite marked. Reminds me of the OTF in a way :lol:

[ScytheNoire]

heh, I've just read the transcript. The difference between the two was quite marked. Reminds me of the OTF in a way :lol:
okay, we don't need that type of behaviour around here. you can take this outside you Canadian.
:P

i love how things always break down whenever politics or religion come up. i didn't even have to try and help this one out, it was rolling before i even arrived. :)

[Tevush Kasht]

Quality of Ronald Reagan ? I thought he was about the worst president the US ever had.

[Oberon]

Best part of the debate: when Cheney suggested people visit factcheck.com (http://www.factcheck.com) to check on his record with Halliburton, he meant to say factcheck.org (http://factcheck.org/) - go check them out and see the difference. Funny thing is, even factcheck.org has some pretty anti-Bush stuff.

[ScytheNoire]

Best part of the debate: when Cheney suggested people visit factcheck.com (http://www.factcheck.com) to check on his record with Halliburton, he meant to say factcheck.org (http://factcheck.org/) - go check them out and see the difference. Funny thing is, even factcheck.org has some pretty anti-Bush stuff.
HAHA, i hope people do go visit fatcheck.com, because that would be perfect. i love that.

and yes, Ronald Reagan was one of the worst presidents as far as how bad things were. but a lot of major events happened during his time as president, things that changed the world for the better today.

[SaroDarksbane]

Lastly I just want to say HOW DID ALL YOU DEMOCRATS SUPPORT KERRY OVER EDWARDS. Do you realize how badly Edwards would've destroyed Bush? Anyway my rant is over. Two points for the vice Presidential candidates.
Hell yes! Say it again!
i think everyone would agree that this debate was pretty much a tie and both sides did a great job.
Nah, I think Cheney won this one.
but i thought i was rather rude of Cheney not to thank Edwards for being there at the end like Edwards did of Cheney. that shows a lot of disrespect and arrogance on Cheney's part.
Heck, Cheney thanked Edwards for his comments earlier, which I thought was a nice touch.
He seems a bit evil sometimes, though.
I wonder if it's because he's bald. :lol:
Best part of the debate: when Cheney suggested people visit factcheck.com to check on his record with Halliburton,
I posted my own thread on this.

<3 for FactCheck.org!

[Eiger]

I thought they both did very well. Cheney came off as being very authoritative and being in control - and presidential (creating a very large contrast to the "nominal" President, if you catch my drift). That gave him the edge that I think had a lot of people thinking he won the debate. Edwards did well and certainly wasn't intimidated, stayed on message, and was very agressive. Personally, I don't think anyone really won and that this debate won't further either campaigns chances at the polls in November.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

heh - forget about content, let's just focus on tone. Welcome to america. :uhhuh: Cheney kicked his @ss.

[Oberon]

heh - forget about content, let's just focus on tone. Welcome to america. :uhhuh: Cheney kicked his @ss.

Now you understand one reason I'm considering emigration.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

lol, its even worse in canada lol :p. Every *** person in america wants to move to canada - join the bandwagon with essex lol :p. We're so socialist up here its a joke.

[Bhs Crew]

heh - forget about content, let's just focus on tone. Welcome to america. :uhhuh: Cheney kicked his @ss.
Forget about content? Did you, AoA, just say to forget about the content of what the people were actually saying?

Content is all important as that contains the issues being discussed. Tone is good too. The main reason why Cheney doesn't lose a debate is he speaks with the tone of a man who is laying down facts, even when he's lying through his teeth. It also helps that he's brilliant and has had decades to refine his skills.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

haha Bhs, that's called sarcasm. It's cool tho, cuz it tells me you take me seriously - thanks :).

[Bhs Crew]

Now you understand one reason I'm considering emigration.
Bah, just move to another state that fits you better. That would be easier and solve many of your problems.

[Oberon]

Bah, just move to another state that fits you better. That would be easier and solve many of your problems.

While it's true that North Carolina is one of the nine levels of Hell (just above Alabama and just below Tennessee) the area I live in isn't too bad (Raleigh-Durham). Still though if I was going to move to another state it would probably be in the more liberal northeast but I really really hate the way yankees talk and I'm a bit of an anglophile hence the reason I'm thinking about moving to England. Also if Bush wins "again" no place in America will be safe and even Canada may not be far enough away. IMO a second Bush term would be much worse than the first term since he won't have to worry about re-election.

[Bhs Crew]

If you hate the way Yankees talk, why do you think it would be better in Canada or England? Anyway Yankees talk in many different ways. Compare New Jersey to Oregon.

Anyway some poll numbers in.
John Edwards won the vice-presidential debate 41% to 28% among uncommitted voters according to a CBS poll. An online poll conducted by MSNBC makes the margin of Edwards’s victory even larger: 67% to 33%. While the MSNBC poll was not a scientific poll, it did have 885,000 responses, so it was a very large poll of Internet users.

I don't know why this is. Maybe it's the Kennedy effect.

This is the effect that allows a President to say "I have just played nuclear chicken with Russia." Then he smiles and everyone says "Wow, you're so brave!"

As you may have guessed I don't think much of JFK (or RFK). My feeling is they were overrated. There is nothing like being attractive, charismatic, and assassinated to boost popularity.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

John Edwards won the vice-presidential debate 41% to 28% among uncommitted voters according to a CBS poll. An online poll conducted by MSNBC makes the margin of Edwards’s victory even larger: 67% to 33%. While the MSNBC poll was not a scientific poll, it did have 885,000 responses, so it was a very large poll of Internet users.

That is very, very scary :cheesy:. People led solely by feeings without the guide of reason are the downfall of any society. I'm convinced that the only way toward some solution is widespread natural disaster. :cheesy:

[Bhs Crew]

Well you could also think Edwards won if you went and checked the facts, but I'm assuming they didn't.

Normally Cheney would win on his tone and ability to spin fiction as fact, in this case I guess he was bested by Edwards charismatic good looks. I'll take what I can get.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You keep calling that guy a liar..

[Oberon]

If you hate the way Yankees talk, why do you think it would be better in Canada or England? Anyway Yankees talk in many different ways. Compare New Jersey to Oregon.

I like the English accent. I specifically dislike the NY/NJ and Massachusetts accents. Accents would only be a deciding factor if all other factors were equal. I don't consider Oregon a yankee state.

[Oberon]

You keep calling that guy a liar..

http://img72.exs.cx/img72/7992/liar2.jpg

[GaiaWombat]

Those poll figures amaze me. the claim could be made that it was a tie, or even that Edwards won by a little, but by margins that big? That's ridiculous. Maybe the population of those polls are an extraneous factor? I just have a hard time believing that there was a 34% margin of victory there.

On the subject of Reagan as a quality president, it really depends which end of the political spectrum you're on. A lot of democrats think he was one of the worst, a lot of republicans think he was one of the best. Personally, I think he was great.

Edit:^Grrr...

He's scary. Brilliant, but scary. :scared:

[Unreg!stered]

Anyway some poll numbers in.
John Edwards won the vice-presidential debate 41% to 28% among uncommitted voters according to a CBS poll. An online poll conducted by MSNBC makes the margin of Edwards’s victory even larger: 67% to 33%. While the MSNBC poll was not a scientific poll, it did have 885,000 responses, so it was a very large poll of Internet users.

I don't know why this is. Maybe it's the Kennedy effect.

This is the effect that allows a President to say "I have just played nuclear chicken with Russia." Then he smiles and everyone says "Wow, you're so brave!"

As you may have guessed I don't think much of JFK (or RFK). My feeling is they were overrated. There is nothing like being attractive, charismatic, and assassinated to boost popularity.

*sniif sniff*
Smells like the Kennedy effect to me simply because I can safely say less than 1% of the people that voted in those polls checked any facts what-so-ever. At least Edward's southern accent is much less vomit inducing than the nasal Kennedy sound.

...bleh, don't get me started on how bad a president JFK was... :rant:

[Booms]

Cheney did lie in the debate...if I ever become un-lazy-fied I'll find stuff for you. It's sorta funny how Cheney sends people to factcheck.org in his defense, but factcheck responds with "what Edwards said was mostly correct."

I also found it amusing when the moderator asked, "what's wrong with a little flip-flopping now and then?" and both Edwards and Cheney responded with "John Kerry doesn't flip-flop!" and "Bush doesn't flip-flop!"

It makes me happy that Edwards is winning over people with his southern charm. Serves 'em (the Republicans) right after the four years of Bush getting away with stuff because he was charismatic.

[Elorion]

Cheney did lie in the debate...if I ever become un-lazy-fied I'll find stuff for you.

Please! Show us Booms! You can do it.

[Andarcel]

You keep calling that guy a liar..
He lieth like rushes on the floor. Ever hear the quote where he blamed gas prices on the Democrats because they hadn't approved his energy policy? Priceless.

[Andarcel]

Please! Show us Booms! You can do it.
Hmm... how about that quote about how he'd never met Edwards before?

[Elorion]

Hmm... how about that quote about how he'd never met Edwards before?
Sorry that was hillarious. Finally a Republican beat a liberal at thier own game.

[Booms]

Please! Show us Booms! You can do it.

I need to find a debate transcript. Does anyone have a link?

EDIT: For now you'll have to be satifised with Cheney referencing a website called "factcheck.com," while what he actually meant was factcheck.org. :p

[Sage the Mage]

Sorry that was hillarious. Finally a Republican beat a liberal at thier own game.

Cheney did lie about that, and freakin FOX NEWS says so.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134589,00.html

[Oberon]

I need to find a debate transcript. Does anyone have a link?

EDIT: For now you'll have to be satifised with Cheney referencing a website called "factcheck.com," while what he actually meant was factcheck.org. :p

Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6187803/) is a transcript of the debate.

[Felicia]

One more debate, well actually not a debate. More like, propoganda spewing.

Seriously, these last two so-called debates aren't debates, they're "Question and Answer" segments. A debate is where people can directly talk to each other about the issues. Neither the president, vice-president or the candidates are even allowed to do that.

After this, no more debates, their contract specifically forbids them for engaging in any other debates not-sanctioned by their respective parties or with third-party candidates.

[Booms]

The effort that we‘ve mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

I'm sorry, but hasn't anyone ever heard of Iran?

[Bhs Crew]

I'm sorry, but hasn't anyone ever heard of Iran?
He wasn't here when I posted all about Iran, and I suppose we can forgive him for not reading the papers.

Felicia- Actually there are two more debates. I realize you hate these debates but they are useful for at very least seeing the minds of the candidates at work. It's better than nothing.

[Bhs Crew]

There were a couple things I wasn't taking into consideration about the debates. When I realized them it helped explain the polls more.

-Cheney's approval rating in this country is really low, which makes people less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt.

-Edwards comes across as friendly and trustworthy so people are more likely to believe him.

-Edwards is really good at playing to the swing voter. What looks one way to the people on this forum (who have already decided one way or another) looks very different to a person with a busy life who hasn't been able to pay enough attention to make up his/her mind.

-Edwards played his hand well. When Cheney said Kerry was against certain weapons Edwards pointed out that Cheney had voted against the same weapons. Often what the two VP candidates said was contradictory so people had to choose who to believe. This only helps Edwards because people already don't trust Cheney and Edwards looks and acts trustworthy.

All these things contribute to Edwards coming accross in the polls as winning the debate.

[Bhs Crew]

Ok I found a poll broken down by city and state on the vp debate results

http://www.surveyusa.com/Scorecards/VPDebateWinnerLoserByRegion041006.pdf

Remember to take a good look at the battleground states.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Edwards looks and acts trustworthy.

Edwards is really good at playing to the swing voter.

a busy life who hasn't been able to pay enough attention to make up his/her mind.

In short, idiots who dont take time to think vote for another idiot.

[Bhs Crew]

In short, idiots who dont take time to think vote for another idiot.
You think Edwards is an idiot?
That wasn't my point. My point was that both sides are playing to people who don't have time to get all the facts. Normally Cheney is better at this but Edwards was able to do better than most people have against him.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

As far as edwards being an idiot - I can offer that definition based solely on your text and other things I've read. I have much more respect for people who present their points like Cheney for instance, than people who are simply skilled rhetoricians and poets. "Intellectual agility" does not imply intelligence. I've got 3 sales agents around me as I'm writing - they could talk their way in and out of anything, but I can guarantee, they're fools. (makes sure nobody's looking lol). Regarding Cheney "lying", that's neither here nor there at this point. WHat we do know however is that he has taken an authoritative position regarding the issues, which offers further investigation. That offers more substance than someone who makes people feel warm and fuzzy. So, attributing "idiot" to edwards is ok in that context of text alone. The true idiots however, and I'm glad you neglected to deny it, are those who fall for that silly theatrical ability. EVERYONE has time in their lives to reflect. Business is no excuse - people make themselves busy. I work full time, write a thesis, run a guild, and still have time to get our for a drink a few times a week, and I still have time to reflect and pray, etc. No excuse whatsoever for assent to ignorance. Like I said before, I'm not really interested in American politics per se, but I'll make a brief appearance or two for the sake of consistency. You've got promise as I said before Bhs, but please try to be a bit more objective - ask yourself for instance why you despise the Repubs? In the end, you'll discover its about a lifestyle preference, not this or that person per se. From there, you can start thinking about more foundational issues in life. Simply hovering around at the "state" level is getting nowhere.

[Eiger]

WHat we do know however is that he has taken an authoritative position regarding the issues, which offers further investigation. That offers more substance than someone who makes people feel warm and fuzzy. So, attributing "idiot" to edwards is ok in that context of text alone.
Actually, I'd argue that Cheney's authoritative tone is effective because it assures people that all's well. As such, it's really the "warm and fuzzy" approach. Edwards attacking what the administration is saying challenges people to think about the assurances they've received that all's well. This is very uncomfortable for a lot of people. I don't know that Cheney offered more substance - I don't remember that. I'm thinking both handled that fairly well, but I did notice Cheney preferring to remain essentially silent on several response opportunities - which was really a smart thing.

But basically I don't think one can say that an authoritative position is a more substantive one as that confuses tone with content.

I do agree with you that everyone has a responsibility to understand and reflect upon the issues and that there's no excuse for ignorance.

[Bhs Crew]

As far as edwards being an idiot - I can offer that definition based solely on your text and other things I've read. I have much more respect for people who present their points like Cheney for instance, than people who are simply skilled rhetoricians and poets.
If your job is to convince people then you get good at it. It doesn't make what you're saying wrong. Cheney is using the same principles as Edwards he just takes a different approach.

WHat we do know however is that he has taken an authoritative position regarding the issues, which offers further investigation. That offers more substance than someone who makes people feel warm and fuzzy.
Cheney's authoritative position is a tactic just like Edwards' warm and fuzzy one. Both of them are trying to convince people of their position. Cheney didn't actually offer any more substance. His tone is designed to convince people who believe that that kind of tone equals substance, like you.

So, attributing "idiot" to edwards is ok in that context of text alone. The true idiots however, and I'm glad you neglected to deny it, are those who fall for that silly theatrical ability.
They are no more idiots then those that fall for Cheney's debating ability. Your mistake is that you think what they are doing is different. Both Cheney and Edwards are trying to convince the audience with tone as well as words. Cheney has found through the years that an authoritative tone works best to convince people, Edwards has found that his tone works best for him.

You've got promise as I said before Bhs, but please try to be a bit more objective - ask yourself for instance why you despise the Repubs?
AoA, I thought you had promise as well, and I still do, but you need to pay more attention.

I have nothing against Republicans, I often vote for them. I have asked myself many times why I dislike the politics of this administration and some of the people who come up with them. I don't like many of Bush's positions because they end up changing the country into something that I don't want to live in. I dislike Bush's plans because the plan is often unable to achieve the stated goal.


In the end, you'll discover its about a lifestyle preference, not this or that person per se. From there, you can start thinking about more foundational issues in life. Simply hovering around at the "state" level is getting nowhere
Philosophy and politics are and always will be intertwined.
What happens in politics affects almost every part of my life. Bills that are passed change what I can and can't do. I care very deeply about the foundational level and I spend a fair amount of time working on it, but I am also a man of politics. This is my career and my passion and so it is in my best interest to notice how the system works.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If your job is to convince people then you get good at it. It doesn't make what you're saying wrong. Cheney is using the same principles as Edwards he just takes a different approach.

Cheney's authoritative position is a tactic just like Edwards' warm and fuzzy one. Both of them are trying to convince people of their position. Cheney didn't actually offer any more substance. His tone is designed to convince people who believe that that kind of tone equals substance, like you.


There was a qualifier in my last post indicating that the truth content was not nearly as important as the means of presentation. With a more systematic approach, even if it were a tactic, it opens the door further for more investigation, using his own points as reference. In the end, even a counter point would be more poignant than one investigated from rhetoric. Debates must be systematic and professional. The motive means nothing. Presentation means everything.


They are no more idiots then those that fall for Cheney's debating ability. Your mistake is that you think what they are doing is different.


I made no mistake. Read the above.


AoA, I thought you had promise as well, and I still do, but you need to pay more attention.


Don't be pretentious. :uhhuh:


I have nothing against Republicans, I often vote for them. I have asked myself many times why I dislike the politics of this administration and some of the people who come up with them. I don't like many of Bush's positions because they end up changing the country into something that I don't want to live in. I dislike Bush's plans because the plan is often unable to achieve the stated goal.


ok.


Philosophy and politics are and always will be intertwined.
What happens in politics affects almost every part of my life. Bills that are passed change what I can and can't do. I care very deeply about the foundational level and I spend a fair amount of time working on it, but I am also a man of politics. This is my career and my passion and so it is in my best interest to notice how the system works.

What does that highlighted segment mean?

[Bhs Crew]

There was a qualifier in my last post indicating that the truth content was not nearly as important as the means of presentation. With a more systematic approach, even if it were a tactic, it opens the door further for more investigation, using his own points as reference. In the end, even a counter point would be more poignant than one investigated from rhetoric. Debates must be systematic and professional. The motive means nothing. Presentation means everything.
I don’t understand why you don’t think the truth content isn’t as important, but you do so I’ll stick with the presentation.

Cheney and Edwards presented their case and addressed each other’s points. Cheney wasn’t any more systematic then Edwards, in fact he seemed to jump around more and dodge questions. Both candidates spoke in a way that allowed further investigation. I would need more information why you believe Cheney’s statements were more systematic then Edwards’.


Don't be pretentious. :uhhuh:

I would never dream of being more pretentious then you.
Consider it some counter pretentiousness.

What does that highlighted segment mean?
You said I should start thinking about the foundational issues in life. I was saying I already do.

[SaroDarksbane]

I have much more respect for people who present their points like Cheney for instance, than people who are simply skilled rhetoricians and poets.
Socrates vs. Gorgias?

Sorry, taking a Philosophy class and we're currently in the "skilled speaker" versus "skilled reasoner" phase. :D

I should have you do my take-home tests for me. =P

[Elorion]

Socrates vs. Gorgias?

Sorry, taking a Philosophy class and we're currently in the "skilled speaker" versus "skilled reasoner" phase. :D

I should have you do my take-home tests for me. =P
Sophisty is "Bad!" :scarey:

[Mastgrr]

I love this piece of the debate:

CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business. That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships.

....

EDWARDS: We both believe that (Edwards and Kerry) -- and this goes onto the end of what I just talked about -- we both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But we also believe that *** and lesbians and *** and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits.

For example, a *** couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral.

I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that.

But we don't -- we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

And I want to go back, if I can, to the question you just asked, which is this constitutional amendment.

I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban *** marriage that is completely unnecessary.

Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage.

Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about.

There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but a political tool. And it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on.

We ought to be talking about issues like health care and jobs and what's happening in Iraq, not using an issue to divide this country in a way that's solely for political purposes. It's wrong.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.

IFILL: That's it?

CHENEY: That's it.

Not only did Edwards show that he's actually more conservative on this issue than Dick Cheney himself (!), but Dick Cheney didn't even bother to respond to this whole issue on a constitutional amendment! I don't know... But it kind of felt like I got more respect for Cheney really. He didn't respond because he couldn't -- he didn't defend something he didn't believe and thought was unjust politics by this President.

Who came on top there in that segment? I think Cheney. Edwards rattled around the Constitutional amendment while Cheney actually explained how he think it should be carried out; by the states deciding. Edwards/Kerry's policy is the same, but Edward's didn't even mention it.

I think -- the most interesting moment of the debate.

[Bhs Crew]

I do have to respect him for not arguing for Bush's proposal in the debate, as it would force him to argue against his own.

I wish he would convince his President of it.

[Sage the Mage]

The great thing about political philosophy is...none of it works in its pure form in practice.

[Elorion]

The great thing about political philosophy is...none of it works in its pure form in practice.
Yup too many variables.

[Bhs Crew]

The great thing about political philosophy is...none of it works in its pure form in practice.
Damn straight.

[Elorion]

Damn straight.
:lol: This is the first time we have agreed on something Bhs. I dont know how to respond to this.

[Bhs Crew]

:lol: This is the first time we have agreed on something Bhs. I dont know how to respond to this.
Time to mark that day on your calander. That's what AoA did when he and Eiger agreed that one time.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I don’t understand why you don’t think the truth content isn’t as important, but you do so I’ll stick with the presentation.


Truth is the goal of any inquiry, but it doesnt depend on motive - its simply something that is discovered. The amount of time it takes to discover it depends on the method used. Thus, more concise presentation allows for faster discovery.


Cheney and Edwards presented their case and addressed each other’s points. Cheney wasn’t any more systematic then Edwards, in fact he seemed to jump around more and dodge questions. Both candidates spoke in a way that allowed further investigation. I would need more information why you believe Cheney’s statements were more systematic then Edwards’.


I don't recally giving an accessment of the speech, nor will I take time to analyze it. As I mentioned earlier, my post started with the "notion" that a fact based tone for instance was more beneficial than a skilled rhetorician. I did not bring in the actual content of the debate, but the idea behind the posts that were going on here. I usually include text for reference if I would bring that element into the picture.


I would never dream of being more pretentious then you.
Consider it some counter pretentiousness.


Why get personal? I don't believe I'm pretentious, as I take time to answer people.


You said I should start thinking about the foundational issues in life. I was saying I already do.

Good enough. You may do well to discuss it a bit more then, instead of sticking solely with politics. You sometimes stray off that topic, but it seems to be a fixation. The discussion of philosophy is more beneficial than simply politics, as politics rests on the thinking that comes from the former. Just my 2 copper.

[Sage the Mage]

Well um...politics has more of a direct impact on my life than abstract theological discussions :)

[Bhs Crew]

I don't recally giving an accessment of the speech, nor will I take time to analyze it. As I mentioned earlier, my post started with the "notion" that a fact based tone for instance was more beneficial than a skilled rhetorician. I did not bring in the actual content of the debate, but the idea behind the posts that were going on here. I usually include text for reference if I would bring that element into the picture.
And my point was that both Cheney and Edwards were skilled rhetoricians who were using their tone to persuade people as well as the content of what they said. There's no such thing as a 'fact-based tone'. Cheney’s tone is that of a narrator but that is because he found that it makes people believe him more. It is the tone that works best with his appearance and personality. It doesn’t make him any less of a rhetorician, nor does it change the issues.


Why get personal? I don't believe I'm pretentious, as I take time to answer people.

Let me explain:
You said:
You've got promise as I said before Bhs, but please try to be a bit more objective - ask yourself for instance why you despise the Repubs?
Now you use that line a lot. It's great because it's almost a compliment. You are saying that I have potential meaning that I could be as good as you already are. But you believed what was holding me back in this case was my lack of objectivity. I try to be as objective as possible so I decided to respond with the same line.

I responded
AoA, I thought you had promise as well, and I still do, but you need to pay more attention.
Now I'm joking. The point is that I'm using the same pretentious line you always use one me. In this case you were making assumptions about me that I didn't see how you could make if you had been paying attention this past year. I have nothing against the vast majority of Republicans and I often support positions held by the majority of their party. It is only parts of the Bush administration that I have a problem with and I have detailed out why many times.

Now I don't expect you to necessarily know that, but if you're going to use that line of yours I would figure you would make sure you knew what you were talking about. You are an expert on philosophy but you were making statements about politics and my political views which you would know to be untrue if you had paid more attention to the political forums.

Anyway, you responded,
Don't be pretentious.
Which I assumed was a joke as I was only using the line you always use. I didn’t know though, you might have been serious so I decided to test it.

So I said,
I would never dream of being more pretentious then you.
Consider it some counter pretentiousness.
Now the point of this line was just to see your response. Do you realize how pretentious you usually are or do you not? I wanted to know.

And you answered my question.
Why get personal? I don't believe I'm pretentious, as I take time to answer people.
The pretentiousness is not in the time you take to answer people but the manner in which you do. Simply put it is the thing that most hurts your arguments in these debates. We were talking about tone, and while you have made large improvements your tone is still that of someone who is trying to teach rather that converse. People are more likely to listen to information from people who consider themselves equal. More importantly you should keep the mindset that you are. No matter how much you know there is always something you could learn from someone else. Chances are that almost everyone on earth knows something neither of us knows, and it is important we remember that.


Good enough. You may do well to discuss it a bit more then, instead of sticking solely with politics. You sometimes stray off that topic, but it seems to be a fixation. The discussion of philosophy is more beneficial than simply politics, as politics rests on the thinking that comes from the former. Just my 2 copper.
They go together. In this case this thread is about a political debate which is what you had commented on. You like philosophy, but then you aren't trying to become a politician. Politics is my passion and I spend a fair amount of time trying to understand it. You know a considerable amount of philosophy, but you seem to believe that it makes you an expert in fields that you know much less about. All I'm asking is that you realize this and try to learn, rather then tell people what you think the truth is. With some experience and practice you could become knowledgeable in those fields as well. After all, you show promise.

And I mean that as a compliment.

[Elorion]

Well um...politics has more of a direct impact on my life than abstract theological discussions :)
Your philosophy affects the way you view politics.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

And my point was that both Cheney and Edwards were skilled rhetoricians who were using their tone to persuade people as well as the content of what they said. There's no such thing as a 'fact-based tone'. Cheney’s tone is that of a narrator but that is because he found that it makes people believe him more. It is the tone that works best with his appearance and personality. It doesn’t make him any less of a rhetorician, nor does it change the issues.


Tone can be deciphered in text by means of presentation style. If you study hermenutics one day, you may discover that.



Now you use that line a lot. It's great because it's almost a compliment. You are saying that I have potential meaning that I could be as good as you already are. But you believed what was holding me back in this case was my lack of objectivity. I try to be as objective as possible so I decided to respond with the same line.
Now I'm joking. The point is that I'm using the same pretentious line you always use one me. In this case you were making assumptions about me that I didn't see how you could make if you had been paying attention this past year. I have nothing against the vast majority of Republicans and I often support positions held by the majority of their party. It is only parts of the Bush administration that I have a problem with and I have detailed out why many times.
Now I don't expect you to necessarily know that, but if you're going to use that line of yours I would figure you would make sure you knew what you were talking about. You are an expert on philosophy but you were making statements about politics and my political views which you would know to be untrue if you had paid more attention to the political forums.


No, I make no commentary on politics. Other than that, the discovery of correct thinking will underpin politics, as it does anything else that can be discused. I am not pretentious in stating you have promise, and you do, so long as you stop posting silly texts like this. Fact of the matter is, I am further along than you are at this stage of the game, and you'd do well to respect and acknowledge that. This does not mean that I have more dignity than you, or that I'm "better", but I can indeed say I'm further along when it comes to education. I hope you can accept that maturely.


The pretentiousness is not in the time you take to answer people but the manner in which you do. Simply put it is the thing that most hurts your arguments in these debates.


In the eyes of a novice, I suppose it would. I don't care about wooing hearts in the OTF, people can kiss my @ss if that's the case. WHat I do care about is consistency.


We were talking about tone, and while you have made large improvements your tone is still that of someone who is trying to teach rather that converse. People are more likely to listen to information from people who consider themselves equal. More importantly you should keep the mindset that you are. No matter how much you know there is always something you could learn from someone else. Chances are that almost everyone on earth knows something neither of us knows, and it is important we remember that.


It's true that people usually listen to those they consider equals, and that's a sad reality. However, I'm not about to condescend to other forum posters for their lack of knowledge on a given subject. You can take the tone with its content, or take a hike. Take your pick. :uhhuh:


They go together. In this case this thread is about a political debate which is what you had commented on. You like philosophy, but then you aren't trying to become a politician.


I don't give a rat's @ss what cheney, edwards, kerry, bush, and their dogs say. What I had commented on is presentation. You decided to make a beef of it.


Politics is my passion and I spend a fair amount of time trying to understand it. You know a considerable amount of philosophy, but you seem to believe that it makes you an expert in fields that you know much less about.


Philosophy is not a single cut and paste subject in school like math or geography. It covers all aspects. YOu treat it like grade school subjects. If politics are your passion, start understanding people, and the reality they live in - which is what I asked you to do earlier.

[Bhs Crew]

but I can indeed say I'm further along when it comes to education. I hope you can accept that maturely.
You are further along in philisophical education, years, and most likely total amount studied but I have no way to verify that. That isn't the issue though.

In the eyes of a novice, I suppose it would. I don't care about wooing hearts in the OTF, people can kiss my @ss if that's the case.
Well that's a shame because unless you're all powerful you will have to convince people of things from time to time.

I don't give a rat's @ss what cheney, edwards, kerry, bush, and their dogs say. What I had commented on is presentation. You decided to make a beef of it.
Well you said that Edwards’ presentation made him an idiot and that Cheney's was far superior. As I differed in opinion I brought it up.

Philosophy is not a single cut and paste subject in school like math or geography. It covers all aspects. YOu treat it like grade school subjects. If politics are your passion, start understanding people, and the reality they live in - which is what I asked you to do earlier.
I spend lots of time studying people and the reality they live in. That is primarily what politics is. I have said repeatedly that these are intertwined, so no I’m not treating this all like I would grade school subjects.

It's true that people usually listen to those they consider equals, and that's a sad reality. However, I'm not about to condescend to other forum posters for their lack of knowledge on a given subject. You can take the tone with its content, or take a hike. Take your pick. :uhhuh:
And that is your decision to force people to make that choice. You have already improved your tone tremendously from when you first started posting but it could always get better. If you want to believe that your tone doesn't matter and you have nothing to gain from improving it, then I suppose that's your choice.

In the eyes of a novice, I suppose it would. I don't care about wooing hearts in the OTF, people can kiss my @ss if that's the case.
Well that's a shame because unless you're all powerful you will have to convince people of things from time to time.

This is something that will affect your life. You can dismiss my suggestions as I expect you will, but that would not be to your benefit. Being able to convey knowledge to people and show them how to see things your way is a skill. It is something which is often needed in life and there are ways to get better at it. Some ways of speaking will cause most people to dismiss what you are trying to tell them automatically. Now one solution is to call these people idiots for not looking at all the facts, but since that doesn't accomplish anything the other option is to try to improve your presentation.

I don't have anything against you AoA and I have learned a lot from talking with you, but you could benefit from learning this. You can continue to dismiss anyone who isn’t willing to put up with your crap long enough to figure out what you’re saying, or you can fix it. It’s entirely up to you.

[Elorion]

I spend lots of time studying people and the reality they live in. That is primarily what politics is. I have said repeatedly that these are intertwined, so no I’m not treating this all like I would grade school subjects.

Bhs I see you more of a person that studies rhetoric then one that studies people. Just the fact that you made a new post all about the way Powermongor and how he wouldnt respond showed that you didnt understand why he was acting the way he did. Bhs this isnt a bad thing. Im sure you have more experience with curtain kind of people then I do. Im not going to pretend you dont. I have alot of friend that are just like Powermongor. I new exactly what was going through his head. I knew it was silly to worry about the way he was posting. Thier are ways to deal with those people, but thats another subject. TOP SECRET. hehe *hint* You need a tenis shoe, a buffalo, and ice cubes. *hint*

[Bhs Crew]

Bhs I see you more of a person that studies rhetoric then one that studies people. Just the fact that you made a new post all about the way Powermongor and how he wouldnt respond showed that you didnt understand why he was acting the way he did. Bhs this isnt a bad thing. Im sure you have more experience with curtain kind of people then I do. Im not going to pretend you dont. I have alot of friend that are just like Powermongor. I new exactly what was going through his head. I knew it was silly to worry about the way he was posting. Thier are ways to deal with those people, but thats another subject. TOP SECRET. hehe *hint* You need a tenis shoe, a buffalo, and ice cubes. *hint*
The very fact that I made the post was to learn why he acted the way he did. I love having him in this forum because when he came in I had no idea how his mind worked. In the short time he has been here I have learned a lot and now I understand more about him and people like him. I'm not saying he's bad; he was just unfamiliar so I didn’t understand his methods. I’ve learned, and that’s why I’m here.

I like you being here for the same reason. You all help me in my study of people. I'm studying right now.

[Elorion]

The very fact that I made the post was to learn why he acted the way he did. I love having him in this forum because when he came in I had no idea how his mind worked. In the short time he has been here I have learned a lot and now I understand more about him and people like him. I'm not saying he's bad; he was just unfamiliar so I didn’t understand his methods. I’ve learned, and that’s why I’m here.

I like you being here for the same reason. You all help me in my study of people. I'm studying right now.
I think alot of us come here for that same reason. And even stay here. :surprise:

I havent figured out why though. JK hehe.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You are further along in philisophical education, years, and most likely total amount studied but I have no way to verify that. That isn't the issue though.


Well I would argue that it's more of an issue than you may think. In my eyes, it's mankind's most worthwile activity. Why is this?


Well that's a shame because unless you're all powerful you will have to convince people of things from time to time.


If I would convince others, it won't be done by means of rhetoric and an attractive tone. I'd like to think that content matters most. Kant himself admitted that rhetoric can prove useful to draw in the noobs as it were, whereby a change to a solid diet of thinking would be applied. I'm not as patient. Thanks however for continuing to ask questions.


Well you said that Edwards’ presentation made him an idiot and that Cheney's was far superior. As I differed in opinion I brought it up.


I said that the definition of an idiot regarding edwards would only come from presentation - there is a difference. I would assert that from what I've read of the two presentations, Cheney's is more favorable. We've discussed this already.


I spend lots of time studying people and the reality they live in. That is primarily what politics is. I have said repeatedly that these are intertwined, so no I’m not treating this all like I would grade school subjects.


I beg to differ. You may study, as everyone does, but by what means do you do this? What is your "methodology"?


And that is your decision to force people to make that choice. You have already improved your tone tremendously from when you first started posting but it could always get better. If you want to believe that your tone doesn't matter and you have nothing to gain from improving it, then I suppose that's your choice.


I'd offer that my tone stayed pretty much the same, only some of the more childish posters who have approached me in the past have either gotten tired of posting, or have learned their folly (likely the former). Regarding forcing a method, we each do that anyhow, and you know by now how this is possible.


This is something that will affect your life. You can dismiss my suggestions as I expect you will, but that would not be to your benefit. Being able to convey knowledge to people and show them how to see things your way is a skill. It is something which is often needed in life and there are ways to get better at it. Some ways of speaking will cause most people to dismiss what you are trying to tell them automatically. Now one solution is to call these people idiots for not looking at all the facts, but since that doesn't accomplish anything the other option is to try to improve your presentation.


You're correct here, there's no queston. However, some people only understand a more base way of communicaton. Sometimes, to make ends meet, you have to take that into consideration, especially on the forums.


I don't have anything against you AoA and I have learned a lot from talking with you, but you could benefit from learning this. You can continue to dismiss anyone who isn’t willing to put up with your crap long enough to figure out what you’re saying, or you can fix it. It’s entirely up to you.

I don't recall dismissing anyone, only posters who post the same thing over, over, and over again with no real purpose in mind.

[Tevush Kasht]

Definition:
Pre-ten-tious: Claiming a position of distinction or merit.

Being pretentious is, in my vision, just a tool to make people uncomfortable and weak if properly used. It's also very manipulative.

I'm still trying to figure out why people always need to convince others to see things their way, probably has to do with insecurity.

[Bhs Crew]

I'd offer that my tone stayed pretty much the same, only some of the more childish posters who have approached me in the past have either gotten tired of posting, or have learned their folly (likely the former).
Well I haven't seen you use the phrase "Argument discarded" in a while. That never got things off on the right foot.


I'm still trying to figure out why people always need to convince others to see things their way, probably has to do with insecurity.
Well sometimes you need the other person to support you in some way and to get their support you need to convince them first. Often convincing is just easier than killing them.

In politics, the skill is required because you need a certain number of votes to do things. Now is just practice and study.

[Elorion]

Definition:
Pre-ten-tious: Claiming a position of distinction or merit.

Being pretentious is, in my vision, just a tool to make people uncomfortable and weak if properly used. It's also very manipulative.

I'm still trying to figure out why people always need to convince others to see things their way, probably has to do with insecurity.
Time to Hypnotize Tevush Kasht to make him see it our way! Muhahahahaha.
Just Kidding :)

The main reason I think alot of us are here is to help ourselves in becoming better debaters and more knowledgable about the issues Instead of trying to persuade eachother. Most the issues I discuss on the internet I already have an oppinion on and backing to why I believe that way. Im just wanting to see as much of both sides as I can.

*example* Alot of the time you get alot of extremist on these forums and its good to know the extreme of both sides. If you dont and its brought up they can say thiers this document that proves this. You have never heard of the document so you may think you missed something. But, if you know for sure the the document comes from some wierdo from New Jersy that is really a Micheal Moore wanabe(this goes both ways on the political spectrum. Then you can put that person in thier place, and everyone is the wiser for it. *example*

[Andarcel]

Definition:
Pre-ten-tious: Claiming a position of distinction or merit.

Being pretentious is, in my vision, just a tool to make people uncomfortable and weak if properly used. It's also very manipulative.

I'm still trying to figure out why people always need to convince others to see things their way, probably has to do with insecurity.
If you believe something, by definition you think it's true. If it's true, most people feel everyone should agree with it. If, of course, you don't agree with that principle, than people making any effort at persuasion must be baffling to you.

[Unreg!stered]

I'd offer that my tone stayed pretty much the same, only some of the more childish posters who have approached me in the past have either gotten tired of posting, or have learned their folly (likely the former).

*blink blink* Mmmm....no, not everyone who approached you on your tone was or is childish. :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

*blink blink* Mmmm....no, not everyone who approached you on your tone was or is childish. :)

'Tis true, certainly not everyone.