Frankensteins monster vs Someone who is not very clever

why where they sitting down? that was stupid.

Cheney's reference to El Salvador was such a lie!

I think one of the most signifigant points raised over and over is why, when they supposedly had Osama and his guys cornered, did they "outsource" his capture to local warlards? To be perfectly honest I'm not even sure of the validity of this claim made by the Dems but Bush and Dick each have had 2 chances during the debates to comment on it. In every instance of its mention they both failed to address this. The fact that they've not taken the opportunity to respond to these statement doesn't look too good and leads me to believe that the Dem's claims are in fact spot-on.
But it's not like my vote is up for grabs or anything anyway.

Because fatass Cheney might have a heart attack.

This played to the advantage of the Republicans, given that Edwards is a stand up fighting trial lawyer, and Cheney is a fatass.

I'm surprised Donald Rumpfelt didn't have an objection to this sit down crap.

Originally posted by sonickteam2:
why where they sitting down? that was stupid.

In a strange twist - all a relatively strong showing by Cheney did for me is reinforce just how much of a buffoon Bush really is.

To me - there appears to be 3 candidates worthy of election. The 4th, and least worthy, is infortunately the incumbent.

It's still basically just a competency issue for me. And Bush clearly isn't (competent).

Why the Repubs settled for him (Bush) is almost beyond comprehension to me now.

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:

This played to the advantage of the Republicans,

doesnt everything seem to? the democrats really dont have a chance…..

Originally posted by chaz:
I think one of the most signifigant points raised over and over is why, when they supposedly had Osama and his guys cornered, did they "outsource" his capture to local warlards? To be perfectly honest I'm not even sure of the validity of this claim made by the Dems but Bush and Dick each have had 2 chances during the debates to comment on it. In every instance of its mention they both failed to address this. The fact that they've not taken the opportunity to respond to these statement doesn't look too good and leads me to believe that the Dem's claims are in fact spot-on.
But it's not like my vote is up for grabs or anything anyway.

From the Washington Post:

Edwards's statement that U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape during the battle at Tora Bora in 2001 echoed Kerry's repeated assertions about the December 2001 battle in Afghanistan during last Thursday's debate. The Pentagon in fact relied on Afghan proxy forces in an effort to minimize the potential loss of U.S. military lives, but whether bin Laden was at Tora Bora at the time of the assault there has been the subject of debate. After the battle, intelligence officials assembled what they believed was decisive evidence that bin Laden began the battle inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border before slipping away. But retired Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, a Bush backer who led U.S. Central Command in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has said he never saw conclusive proof that the al Qaeda leader was in Tora Bora at the time.

Franks has taken responsibility for the decision to send Afghan militias rather than U.S. ground troops to Tora Bora. During an interview last month at the Republican convention in New York, where the retired general endorsed Bush and addressed the delegates, Franks said his decision was influenced by the Soviet Union's disastrous efforts in the 1980s to fight with ground troops in Afghanistan. He also said the strategy was to use Afghan forces, backed by U.S. air power, to drive al Qaeda toward the Pakistani border, where 100,000 Pakistani troops killed and captured hundreds of al Qaeda operatives. Bin Laden was not among them.

After the Tora Bora fight, as local Afghan militias began withdrawing, considering their part of the war over, top Pentagon officials appeared ready to send hundreds of conventional ground troops into the White Mountains to press the search for bin Laden and his associates. That plan was dropped in favor of offers of money, weapons and cold-weather clothing to sustain Afghan cooperation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/1005c_text.html

The best part of the debate would have to be Cheney dropping the ball on the Halliburton accusations.

He suggested that viewers should look at the political fact checking website set up by the University of Pennsylvania. Unfortunately for Cheney, he gave the address as factcheck.com, rather than the correct address of factcheck.org. This is a seemingly minor oversight until one goes to www.factcheck.com and discovers that the site automatically redirects to the website of the Democrat's bagman – George Soros.

apparently Cheney had also met Edwards several times

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by chaz:
I think one of the most signifigant points raised over and over is why, when they supposedly had Osama and his guys cornered, did they "outsource" his capture to local warlards? To be perfectly honest I'm not even sure of the validity of this claim made by the Dems but Bush and Dick each have had 2 chances during the debates to comment on it. In every instance of its mention they both failed to address this. The fact that they've not taken the opportunity to respond to these statement doesn't look too good and leads me to believe that the Dem's claims are in fact spot-on.
But it's not like my vote is up for grabs or anything anyway.

From the Washington Post:

Edwards's statement that U.S. forces allowed Osama bin Laden to escape during the battle at Tora Bora in 2001 echoed Kerry's repeated assertions about the December 2001 battle in Afghanistan during last Thursday's debate. The Pentagon in fact relied on Afghan proxy forces in an effort to minimize the potential loss of U.S. military lives, but whether bin Laden was at Tora Bora at the time of the assault there has been the subject of debate. After the battle, intelligence officials assembled what they believed was decisive evidence that bin Laden began the battle inside the cave complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border before slipping away. But retired Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, a Bush backer who led U.S. Central Command in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, has said he never saw conclusive proof that the al Qaeda leader was in Tora Bora at the time.

Franks has taken responsibility for the decision to send Afghan militias rather than U.S. ground troops to Tora Bora. During an interview last month at the Republican convention in New York, where the retired general endorsed Bush and addressed the delegates, Franks said his decision was influenced by the Soviet Union's disastrous efforts in the 1980s to fight with ground troops in Afghanistan. He also said the strategy was to use Afghan forces, backed by U.S. air power, to drive al Qaeda toward the Pakistani border, where 100,000 Pakistani troops killed and captured hundreds of al Qaeda operatives. Bin Laden was not among them.

After the Tora Bora fight, as local Afghan militias began withdrawing, considering their part of the war over, top Pentagon officials appeared ready to send hundreds of conventional ground troops into the White Mountains to press the search for bin Laden and his associates. That plan was dropped in favor of offers of money, weapons and cold-weather clothing to sustain Afghan cooperation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/1005c_text.html

I'm sure that Franks taking the blame has nothing to do with trying to make Bush look better (shaking head in disbelief).

Why would Cheney lie?

Originally posted by pollard:
apparently Cheney had also met Edwards several times

Originally posted by hitman:
I'm sure that Franks taking the blame has nothing to do with trying to make Bush look better (shaking head in disbelief).

So, you are saying that it wasn't General Franks who made that military decision?

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Why would Cheney lie?

for a good line to use I guess

here is the article http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20041006_463.html

Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Why would Cheney lie?

he's a politician, why would he tell the truth?

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:

Originally posted by hitman:
I'm sure that Franks taking the blame has nothing to do with trying to make Bush look better (shaking head in disbelief).

So, you are saying that it wasn't General Franks who made that military decision?

Franks doesn't make those decisions without say so/input from the White House and Rumsfeld. Just like Stormin' Norman didn't make them all by himself in Desert Storm.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
The government shouldn't be doing those things that people could better do for themselves. Not only for financial reasons, but also because an increasing reliance on government ultimately undermines true community, where people should be looking out for their common good among themselves.

But taking private retirement accounts as an example, when people fuck up (through their own fault – which is HIGHLY likely as most Joe Schmoes believe in their hearts that one day they'll be a millionaire so will be very risky in their investing – or because the market collapses or an Enron dupes millions or California falls in to the sea), government will have to bail them out. At a much higher cost in an emergency and short period of time. There are certain absolutely essential services you cannot risk.

Originally posted by Arthwys:
Oh, and something else that i just remembered, I really liked Bush's jibe at Kerry about…."i don't know how he plans on paying for all that.."

That's just it…i'm sure our government could accomplish a whole heck of a lot if we gave it more powers and loads more money. Only thing is, there's many of us around that don't want to live with that kind of pervasive government presence in our lives.

The irony is that under Bush the government has grown, and though there have been tax cuts, it's basically cost us $5 trillion as we switched from a surplus to a deficit…

And when I say govt is grown, I'm not even talking about the proposed govt controls over our religion, bodies, marraiges, medical research, etc.

But for some reason the old party tenets stick in people's minds – Republicans mean smaller government and bigger (i.e., better) defense. Talk about knee jerk assumptions not based in truth anymore…

Originally posted by Arthwys:
I just think the rate at which government will grow (cuz it will no matter who's in office) would be slower w/ a conservative president than a liberal one.

Disproven in a comparison of Clinton and GW's administrations. You're thinking of the Grand Old Party of yore. It largely doesn't exist anymore, and has been replaced by a Christian jihad.

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
That averaged a 4.2-percent annual increase under Clinton, versus 8.1 percent under Bush.
that's probably due to the billions of dollars being thrown at education. ;)

Right, like No Child Left Behind, Bush's seminal socially positive legislation. That he got passed but THEN DIDN'T FUND. Seems like a hollow victory, don't it??

A. Better to be responsible only for the fuck-ups than for everyone.

B. The fact that people fuck themselves isn't a decent rationale for enabling them to fuck themselves. But I guess we have pretty much given up on the idea of personal responsibility, which is pretty much the death knell for a nation built on the Protestant work ethic (God helps those who help themselves).

Originally posted by Bags:
But taking private retirement accounts as an example, when people fuck up (through their own fault – which is HIGHLY likely as most Joe Schmoes believe in their hearts that one day they'll be a millionaire so will be very risky in their investing – or because the market collapses or an Enron dupes millions or California falls in to the sea), government will have to bail them out. At a much higher cost in an emergency and short period of time. There are certain absolutely essential services you cannot risk.