Reply With Quote
Actually, Ice's Vbucks are out on bets. He was #1 in the entire forum after MNF, winning huge on KC. He had over 1700
I'd slow down on the VBuck betting if I were you...you seem to be zeroed out.
Actually, Ice's Vbucks are out on bets. He was #1 in the entire forum after MNF, winning huge on KC. He had over 1700
See what I mean?
the strategy of the administration is to obfuscate the issue by deflecting all attention from them and their failures onto pointless arguments about what the opponent had for lunch on dec 18th 1997
Actually, the bet was...
Of course, you don't have to go back 40 years, or even 30 years. All you have to go back to is VP George Walker Bush who casts 7 tie-breaking votes in the Senate between 1981-1989. Last I heard 7 is still more than 6, although with the Fed fuzzy math, you never know for sure.I'd be willing to bet that Chaney has cast more deciding votes in his first term as VP than probably any other VP in the past 40 years, probably since WWII, maybe even longer......I'd be willing to bet he has already cast as many as Gore did in his entire 8 year term. Can't do that if he's not around.
He cast all 7 in the first or second term? I don't believe it. There's a reason I specifically singled out Gore
when I said his entire 8 year term.
So the part that should be blacked out is this:Go recheck your source and figure out that I am right....I'd be willing to bet that Chaney has cast more deciding votes in his first term as VP than probably any other VP in the past 40 years
Last edited by whottt; 10-07-2004 at 02:48 AM.
I went and looked at 1369's list myself.
1. George Bush cast 7 votes in both his terms combined, he never cast more than 4 in a single term.
Whottt is right.
2.The combined total of all the VP's before that...going back 40 years is 7. This spans LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, Rockerfeller, Agnew, Ford and Mondale.
Richard Nixon used his vote 8 times in two terms but never more than 4 times in a single term.
Whottt is still right.
That takes us back over 50 years of Whottt being right.
What did whottt say originally? 40 years.
Then you finally get to the guy who did it more in a 4 year term, Allen Barkley 49-53...who cast the deciding vote 8 times.
And finally Whottt is wrong...but I wouldn't have bet 500 V Bucks on that long of a shot.
But technically...Cheney's first term isn't over yet. It ends in 05. I don't expect a democrat to be fair about that...
After all....Kerry calls Bush a failure for not having the Iraq war solved in a year in a half...He promises to solve it in 4 years...and he gets the year and a half of rebuilding put in by the Bush administration.
Technically, that can be interpreted to mean that Cheney has cast more tie-breaking votes in 4 years than any other Vice President did in 8 years. You even reenforced this assumption with the following sentence...Chaney has cast more deciding votes in his first term as VP than probably any other VP in the past 40 years
Now, why would you single out Gore and not every other VP going back 40 years for this qualifier? Simple. You didn't, but nice spin though.that Chaney cast more than Gore did in his two terms combined
Um I did single out Gore specifically with that qualifier, how in the can you say I didn't..it's right there in front of you...Do you see any other VP's name mentioned specifically other than Gore's?
I made that clear, epmhatically clear, 100% and I made sure it was clear when you asked me if I wanted to bet 500 VBUCKS...
It was not a reinforcement, it was a specific claim. I claimed two different things there...
And the reason I specifically singled out Gore...why? What would be the obvious reason? The fact that he was the VP of most recent administration other than the current, in what was a particularly smooth era of US history..that I just lived through as a relatively mature and somewhat politically active adult. It was the administration I had the most seeing eye knowledge of, other than the current, not to mention one that I supported.
I have absolutely no problems admitting my claims were not all accurate...You have a problem admitting the ones that were accurate..Cheney has not cast more deciding votes in his first term than any other VP since WWII..I am wrong there...but he cast more than any VP of the past 40 years...I am right there. And he has cast more than Gore did in both terms combined...I am definitely right there. There's a reason I was only willing to bet 500$ on one of the 3 claims I made...
Last edited by whottt; 10-07-2004 at 04:05 AM.
Look, If you want to get into specifics you also said...
Alben W. Barkley (1949-1953) had 8 in 4 years well before WW2. So pay up.probably since WWII, maybe even longer
I'm wrong on that...but when you asked me if I was willing to bet 500$ on that I said no. I told what part I was willing to bet 500$ on. You weren't here to accept...you continued posting in other threads for a bit and returned 12 hours later.
And TECHNICALLY, Cheney's first term isn't over yet, which means, TECHNICALLY none of my claims are wrong yet, if you want to get TECHNICAL about it.
Nope, that was my last post of the day. This is why I am not holding you to the bet, but at the time I left, I was right.I'm wrong on that...but when you asked me if I was willing to bet 500$ on that I said no. I told what part I was willing to bet 500$ on. You weren't here to accept...you continued posting in other threads for a bit and returned 12 hours later.
You can't hold me to a bet I didn't agree to anyway. Not when the stakes are for 500 VBucks. You're mad if you think I'd carelessly risk my entire VBuck fortune like that...
And Cheney's first term isn't over yet anyway. There's going to be some very heavy legislative periods coming up....if Bush and Cheney lose the election they are going to be really heavy.
But you have totally missed the point...there is everything to indicate Cheney has been the most active VP in the Senate since 1949-1953, and one of the most active in history. A far cry from the claims made at the beginning of this thread.
And there is nothing in here to disprove Cheney's allegations that Edwards often shirks his Senate duties.
The only thing proven in this thread is that modern crats are largely ignorant of the role the VP fills in the Senate, and what his responsibilities are on a (tues)day to (tues)day basis.
No, the real important thing that was proven is that it is ok for you boobleheads to criticize Kerry for not being on the Senate Intelligence Committee roll call, even though he has said he was there for most of the private meetings, but its not ok for Progressives to criticize Cheney for not being on the Senate attendance roll call.The only thing proven in this thread is that modern crats are largely ignorant of the role the VP fills in the Senate, and what his responsibilities are on a (tues)day to (tues)day basis.
Hypocritical? You tell me.
Whott it proves is that the original reason for the post cannot be disputed by the conservatives on this board.
So you don't think there is any difference in the responsibilities of the Vice President of the United States and *just* a US Senator?
Especially in a time of war.....that they should be held to the exact same standards? No excuses?
I'm just curious....
So we're back to the fact that Cheney could be at the Senate without actually having to preside over it while it was in session.
Stop evading the issue!!!!!!
Cheney lied. 'nuff said.
How is that evading the issue?
I don't give a hoot about whether or not Cheney was presiding or not.
The fact is he said he had never met Edwards before and that was a fat, bold faced lie. You do remember what a lie is don't you?
Or is it only a lie if you are a democrat?
What is the subject of this thread?
That Cheney is a liar.
Cheney's point of the whole damn interlude was that Edwards' ass is rarely there when it counts. I really don't think he GAF about a breakfast or whatever, it's certainly not relevant to his duty. So he showed up for free food and a photo op. BFD.
How does that possibly equate to, you know, whether or not he actually GAF enough to be there, representing the people of Carolina, actually voting on the key issues he professes to support?
Hard to say you're for reducing the tax-burden of the middle class when he didn't even make it a point to be there to vote for extending the current relief efforts due to expire. Or is it only common sense if your a Republican?
Last edited by SpursWoman; 10-07-2004 at 02:18 PM.
Yoni is officially busy.
No one answered my question. Did the day that Cheney told that prick to go himself appear on the list at the beginning of this post? And, did Cheney ever miss a voting opportunity as President of the Senate?
I believe the answer to both questions is no. And, I further believe that since the answer to the first is no, the list posted neither represents Cheney's presence in the chamber of Edward's absence.
Man, you people need a ing government lesson.
The Vice President is only needed in the Senate chamber to break a tie. That Vice President Cheney attempts to make a visit every week is laudable but unnecessary...the Administrative Branch keeps a close tab, through liaisons, on which legislation is liable to need the Veeps deciding vote.
No, on the matter of the President's "vacations." The President of the United States takes his office with him wherever he goes. Senators don't have that luxury, it's why Senator Dole resigned to run for President. Senators are paid to represent the people by voting their conscience (LOL), in chambers, on all matters brought before them for a vote...Edwards missed that opportunity more than 70% of the time. His cons uents are rightly pissed at Senator "Gone."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
