Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Corsair on October 05, 2004, 10:16:33 pm
-
I didn't get to see it but all the major networks are giving a huge win to Edwards...thoughts?
Personally, I think Cheney doesn't relate well to people. He just has a forbidding aura.
On the other hand, a lot of women seem to think that Edwards is hot.
-
All the media (except for fox) will always say that the liberal party has won.
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
All the media (except for fox) will always say that the liberal party has won.
Yeah I agree
-
Well, on one hand you've got Cheney (FU Cheney, I'll remind you, not exactly becoming on a high-ranking politician of any kind) who has been so out of public sight under the bush administration it's not even funny, who's got a relatively dry personality and isn't the most exciting person to look at or listen to. On the other, you've got Edwards, who is younger, fresher, and much better in the art of debate (trial lawyer, he's done this sort of thing since college). It really is no suprise that all the major networks are leaning Edwards' way.
-
Bush needs Powell. Powell's wife wouldnt let him do it though because she is afraid he would be assassinated (last I heard anyway.)
-
Yeah I remember hearin that, they were also talkin about him bein the first black president, but he said no cuz of his wife
-
Didn't watch it.
Did Cheney imply that 9/11 and Saddam were related? Thats his specialty. If so, I hope Edwards shot him down, though I doubt it.
Brief synopsis please?
-
Cheney said that he has never ever, implied that 9/11 and Saddam were related.
or so I heard.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Cheney said that he has never ever, implied that 9/11 and Saddam were related.
or so I heard.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has cast doubt on whether there was ever a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
The alleged link was used as a reason by President Bush for invading Iraq.
Mr Rumsfeld was asked by a New York audience about connections between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.
"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said, though he later issued a statement saying he was misunderstood.
(snip)
Several hours after his appearance, Mr Rumsfeld issued a statement saying his comments had been "regrettably misunderstood" and that he had acknowledged there were ties between Osama Bin Laden and Iraq based upon CIA intelligence.
This included "solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad", he said.
There has never been any link whatsoever identified between Iraq & Al-queda, AFAIK. bin Ladin hated Saddam, and specifically the fairly secular Iraqi society* - he turned down an offer of sanctuary from Iraq before going to Afghanistan.
Popularly believed links (in the US) between 9/11 are nothing but press misinformation... there is a wealth of dirt to dig up on this, but I'll leave that for someone else.
Oh, and Cheney always strikes me as a somewhat sinister individual. Not seen this Edwards bloke that I can remember, albiet.
*later becoming increasingly Islamic post 1991 war in order to try and gain more support from other Arab nations
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Cheney said that he has never ever, implied that 9/11 and Saddam were related.
or so I heard.
wrong
he said it several times during the debate
-
I favour the Republicans usually but having watched a fair bit of the debate it was clear Edwards was giving the better impression. But then he seems a naturally competent politician, unlike nearly everyone else.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
naturally competent politician
Isn't that an oxymoron?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Isn't that an oxymoron?
A double one at that... natural Politics doesn't exist and competent politicians is a figment of your imagination.
-
so what then, anarchism?
its a good idea, but I don't think the world is ready for that yet.
-
Anarchism would never work. People would simply form into tribes, then alliances, then countries, then representative government....and a few hundred or so years later we'd be right back where we started.
-
Cheney actually did fairly well in the debate and managed to pose questions that Edwards could not answer.
-
such as?
-
"Why are you such a doo-doo head?"
-
I said that he said it, not that he was telling the truth at the time, further I only heard it from a third hand source
-
Ah, but obviously for politicians, a third hand source is a reliable source! ;)
-
Of course :).
This debate was buckets of fun to watch. Both sides dropped the ball to varying degrees, but I think Edwards pulled it off beautifully.
"One more month! One more month! One more month! One more month!"
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
All the media (except for fox) will always say that the liberal party has won.
I disagree...CNN is more right wing now than ever before. Coming from an outside perspective anyways...
-
I never listen to American media. At the very least I take it with a 747 full of salt grains.
-
It was less painful to watch than the presidential debate because it involved two intelligent people. I thought they both came off strong in different ways. Cheney carries the massive intertia of extensive experience and seems to radiate authority, whereas Edwards is far more eloquent, and I thought he was fairly aggressive in criticizing the administration's actions.