Printable View
.... Nor am I a Cheney fan, but he exudes the requisite competence for the office.
I hope that John Edwards never becomes "my" Vice President.
John Edwards, meet your new career, as a talk show guest on "news" TV.
Edit to add: John Edwards is Dan Quayle with 10 more IQ points.
I'm still waiting for him invoke the ghosts of past Vice Presidents.
He's the worst of this world: liberal and a snobby lawyer.
As opposed to some rich, cranky old oilman. Yeah, he's likeable. :devil
I think I'd like him more if he would try to invoke a ghost. :lol
his look toward cheney is funny
he thinks he is above cheney
I really did hope he would "channel" an unborn child sometime during the debate. Damn!
All I know is Bill Clinton should sue John Edwards for stealing his patented thumb maneuver.
http://www.bubbygram.com/performers/clintontw.jpg
[email protected] :rollin :rollin :rollin
He has that same appeal. I think a lot of Neocons here will be disappointed in the numbers for this debate. People just don't like Dick Cheney. It's a fact of life, and probalby unfair, but that's politics. If a negative Q rating were possible, he'd probably have it. People shown a picture of him probably identify him as their cranky old grandfather who always tries to grab the TV remote to switch to Lawrence Welk.
Cheney may remind people of grandpa.
Edwards reminds people of the rick prick everyone had in a class in HS or college and wanted to beat the shit out of (but knew they couldn't because he'd sue their ass).
I think a lot of people do like Dick Cheney because he is a serious public official, not a slick talking empty suit.
Perception is reality, MB. That's the way of the world. He comes across as surly and mean.
Sure, why shouldn't he be surly? We have serious shit to deal with and intern Johnny won't get the coffee.
...and as having an absolute iron grasp of the job of Vice President and the global situation. Who cares if he's surly and mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
It's a media blitz, telegenic world, which is the only way that Bush gets by, and why Cheney is his ticket's anchor in tow. At least the Demo "empty suit" isn't in the top spot on the ticket...
At least the top of the ticket knows what he stands for, even if he isn't glib.
Yeah, it's in both.Quote:
At least the Demo "empty suit" isn't in the top spot on the ticket..
Not with the "pajama people," not anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
That makes no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
Please, Kerry and Edwards, both, are all about symbolism over substance. From Kerry's insta-tan to Edwards patented "Clinton thumb thrust." They've convinced themselves the American people want pompous, wealthy, pretty boys running the country.Quote:
"At least the Demo 'empty suit' isn't in the top spot on the ticket..."
Cheney's worst crime is not ripping Edwards a bigger asshole on issues...
Cheney was the primary architect behind the Persian Gulf War Coalition, congress awarded him a medal for his work on building it. If Edwards knew dick he would have known that.
That coalition would not allow for going into Iraq either, that was why we didn't go in. Again, Edwards don't know dick.
Many of the countries involved in that war have a much smaller millitary now, and what's left of the European allies are heavily involved in Nato operations.
Still, Cheney won the debate and the election when he pointed out that Edwards might wind up as our president if Kerry wins....
Game over.
And, if we had...it would have cost $120 Billion dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by whottt
This is what Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney said in 1991 about GW1 troops not attacking Baghdad..
Source: Speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Apr 29, 1991Quote:
Some have suggested that if we had gotten involved just a little bit -- for example, if we had shot down a few helicopters -- it would have changed the outcome of the conflict. I think that is a misguided notion. One of the lessons that comes out of all of this is we should not ask our military personnel to engage “a little bit” in a war. If you are going to go to war, let’s send the whole group; let’s make certain that we’ve got a force of sufficient size, as we did when we went into Kuwait, so that we do not suffer any more casualties than are absolutely necessary.
I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
Of course, that didn't stop him from invading Baghdad in GW2.
The result - quagmire.
Yeah because we didn't plan on invading Iraq because the other countries wouldn't do it. If we'd gone into Iraq at that time we would have gone it alone. And we did not have the logistics to do it. We did not have the resources in the middle east to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
Quagmire? Did you expect us to do this in 2 days?
Bomb a country, topple it's government, and install a democracy in the middle east, in a year and a half?
How fast would you have preferred we did it? And do you really think you are being realistic with that time frame?
Every one approves the Afghanistan Invasion, we have been there longer.
I thought the debate was about a tie. Neither side made a gaffe. Both sides have a rather tenuous hold on the facts. Both sides promise more goodies without increasing taxes accordingly.
However, Cheney was the heavyweight and Edwards the lightweight to me. So if I was forced to pick a winner, it would be Cheney.
Cheney's point on the 1991 Gulf War was that despite having a coalition behind the effort that included France and Germany and meeting every other presumable aspect of Kerry's "global test" that Kerry voted against it.
I've been a fan of John Edwards for a few years.
He'll have his shot at the big cheese.