Who will win? Does beauty have a chance against the beast? Will Dr. Evil bend the Ken doll over and use him like the bitch he is?

Discuss.

I think the "beast" will probably win. But who knows.. maybe under all that boyishness Edwards is actually tough.

Cheney is winning and will win.
edit: uh oh, edwards used kerry's name

i thought cheney would win because he's an evil f**king genius and everyone knows he's a total dick, but edwards did very well. he brought up really lousy things about cheney's record that cheney didn't bother to defend, and that was pretty damaging.

he did that alot. what does it mean?

crackaz ain't talkin about the draft! atleast not while i'm listening.

time for the final statements...

it shows his incompetence. he couldn't follow a simple debate rule.

incompetent? thats a little harsh isn't it?

i guess it is, but still, why should edwards be exempt from following the rules?

undecided voters voted on who won the debate and they thought edwards did. that's a good thing :). Cause he did. haha i like edwards, his smile reminds me of tom cruise. he seems really friendly, and cheney's just like. blah i'm fat and mean raar and stupid.

They debated SITTING DOWN... that instantly destroys any credibility they could've gained from the debate. It's like Ted Turner Debate ... no one takes it seriously because you sit down. But the again, Cheney would probably have a heart attack after 90 minutes of standing up.

Edwards is pretty experienced (not compared to Cheney though,) I think he knew what he was doing when he said Kerry's name. That was a stupid rule anyway, but I think he knew.

not only that, but he interrupted cheney during cheney's turn.



CBS poll. think about that.

so what, it was still a poll. anyways it wasn't really like anyone was dominating, they were proving each other wrong and it was a matter of credibility. HOWEVER, we know now it is a FACT that cheney has met edwards before. we also know that cheney is a dumbass for giving out the link for an anti-bush website instead of a halliburton website. we also know that bush HAD stated that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq and that suddam hussein had something to do with september 11th, both which were proven wrong but cheney claimed bush never stated either of those. so yeahhh

WMD is 'knowledge' given to Bush but several entities, domestic and foreign; he didn't just say there were WMD in Iraq out of the blue.

If anyone wants to question credibitly of Bush's supposed false statement, then one should question intelligent agencies instead.

Kerry and Edwards were/are lawyers first, and politicians second. They may debate well enough in front of a jury, but they don't really have a firm grasp of their stance. Thus Kerry is known for changing his mind about everything and Edwards gave out old data/old information during the debate.

I don't think it was a wise move to actually say, "We have to kill the terorrists we find"

why is it so wrong that kerry changes his mind? unless you are indirectly trying to accuse kerry of just catering his views on his own personal political gain, you can't say someone changing their mind is a bad thing. And if you are trying to say his views are based on what will work out best for him politically, you have no evidence to back that up. perhaps he's just changing his mind because he thinks over what he's supporting. as for the old data/information, at least it's correct.

If you and I change our minds about certain things in life, that's just fine. However, at the national level, many things are at stake: security, economy... etc.

It is very misleading for Kerry to change his mind because many people will be promised one thing but will get another. Sorta like that. For example, he can promise to pull our troops out of Iraq, but then change his mind about it later when it suits him.

Lets see, he changed his mind about gun control, Iraq invasion (every congressional leader/Senate knew exactly what they were voting affirmative for), etc....

I just hope Kerry changes his mind about wanting this presidency.

As for data, lets say that I knew that it rained yesterday and you ask me if it's going to rain today so you can bring an umbrella to school. I answer that "well, it rained yesterday(or even a week ago)..." (an old data)

How is that going to help you decide?

i don't think the flip flop attacks are really very effective, atleast to people that i know. for myself i'd rather have a cowardly, indecisive president than one i know for sure will use the constitution to discriminate, kill people, steal money, move money into religious organizations, drill in "protected" areas, and refuse to sign treaties that promote WMD safety.

ok, one thing people NEED to understand is that Kerry so called "changing his mind" isn't so simple. There are details about situations that can be released later and there are certain facts that someone may agree with and others they may not agree with. This doesn't mean he's "going the way the wind blows" or any other moronic Republican crap.

Also, did you know the reason Kerry didn't support funding for the war completey? Maybe because $27,000,000 of the 87,000,000 was going to.. dum dum dum..
HALLIBURTON!

Isn't it just a coincidence that Dick Cheney, our good old Vice President basically runs the joint?! This is the kind of crap that isn't neccessary to fight this so called "terrorism" in Iraq.


Pffhh.. I'll stop now before I explode!!

HAHAHA, I'll just make things simple and comment on one thing.

He didn't fund the war "completely" but he voted FOR it. Doesn't it tell you SOMETHING. Anything at all?

You're right!! I would rather have a dumbass texas daddy's boy who will not think things through and will risk the youth of America's lives without reconsidering. Instead of someone who is willing to think things through and try to correct his mistakes. Instead I want someone who will not recognize a mistake and try to fix it, who is so certain about everything.
Uninspiredfae your signature does say: "The road for certainty is the road for insanity."

Well, in the lounge I did say that I rather have Nader (ComradeRed convinced me that both choices suck).

Anywho, so you rather your president changes his mind to his liking than to what the country needs?

Lets see how you define risking "the youth of America", then we'll talk again.

As for my signature, being uncertain doesn't mean swaying my mind to the direction of any wind (or rather, changing my mind so that more people will vote for me), but it does mean that we all should leave room for possibilies.

Note: possibility doesn't necessarily mean "changing", capeche?

Interpretation is a wonderful thing in religion, politics, and literature, no?

actually to correct you, kerry didn't "VOTE FOR THE WAR" as it is popularly believed. he voted for the president to have the right to chose to go to war if he thought it was neccessary. so ultimatly, kerry and the rest of the senate put the decision up to bush. he didnt vote for it, he wasn't like oh i support this war in iraq lets burn those motherf**kers cause we're the big bad U.S.A etc. etc.

Bush won.

uh...? yah i think you're in the wrong thread, the debate was between edwards and cheney.

Correction not quite needed.

To lead this back to my first comment here, I did say that EVERY congressional member and/or Sentor knew EXACTLY what they were voting affirmative to. Meaning it was ALREADY OBVIOUS that once he (the president) has the "right to choose", he would "choose" attack. I knew this, high school and junior high kids knew this, and so the did most of America.

Kerry would have been pretty dense if he thought Bush wouldn't attack, don't you think?

As for "big bad U.S.A", that has been what the rest of the world viewed us as since... well since a long time ago.

Kerry used to say that he would have attacked, then he said that he wouldn't have attacked the way Bush did, then he just changed his mind altogether and said that he wouldn't have attacked at all (his most updated view according to MSN news).

I'm most confused by this man.

It was certainly a goddamn great debate. On one hand, you have a corporate giant, a master intimidator and incredibly authoritative speaker, against a younger, good-looking, charming and equally quick-on-his-feet debater.

Cheney looked like he wanted to eat America's children and Edwards came off as an arrogant a-hole, and even did the Bush stutter once or twice.

I haven't seen Kerry's voting record, does anyone have a reliable source that I can read?

what words made you think cheney wanted to eat children? have any quotes?

no. you don't.

I didn't literally think Cheney was going to eat children. JESUS IS EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM THAT STUPID.

Do you have a sense of humor?

No. You don't.

Oh no! Did I just defy a mod?! Please don't raise my warning level, oh great and powerful one!

You are calling me stupid, yet you ask a question and put a period rather than a question mark. Hypocrite.

I can raise your warning level for flaming. And that's exactly what I'm going to do.

Uh, no shit I put a period there. It's to emphasize it. And even so, what kind of response was that? A grammar lesson?! OH NO!!! I feel so stupid now for using incorrect grammar even though I did it purposefully!

And you have still look like you have no sense of humor so my original intent was still achieved. Nice going.

Now being that you are a mod, giving me a warning point seems pretty justified since I did flame so I am not busting your balls for what most posters would complain about as power-tripping(I moderate at different forums so I completely understand; "moderator disrespect" blah blah blah). However, is that the only way you can come back at me? With warning points? Cause that seems pretty weak.

Using a grammatical error to emphasize a point isn't a good idea, especially when you insult someone in the same sentence. The fact that you did it on purpose makes it worse. The mistake muddled your message, rather than emphasized it.

I don't think using your mod powers to debate is super intelligent... like a CB orwell 1984 or something... to keep people into not disagreeing with you, you threaten them. Honestly, that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

I didn't threaten anyone at all. He flamed, I raise the warning level. Where did I use a threat?



I did what was expected. I did not abuse my power.

You, on the other hand, seem to completely ignore my argument and instead, focus on my action (which National Boner Day agreed was right). I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, because possibly you don't understand the purpose of debate.

Debate is to prove your point over the other person, not hurl insults. NBD's behavior was not within the bounds of a debate. As a result, I raised his warning level. I put out my argument, showing the hypocrisy of his insult, yet you ignored it and claimed that I abused my mod powers, a claim which has no base at all.

Let's stay on topic. Vice Presidential debate.



Just curious, how do your looks affect your ability to win a debate?

unfortunatly looks have an effect on some people coughshallowchough therefore even THAT could pull in votes for Kerry... oh what a world we live in.

haha that debate was great.

Jason: please no spamming.

National Boner Day: That is an awesome animation did you make it?

I've seen several of your spam posts already. Your posting ability will be suspended.

If we're going to talk about looks (and the likes)...

Did anyone notice how Edwards battered his eye lashes with almost every word he uttered?

If anyone has taken any classes or workshops on body language (or have any common sense), the action insinuates nervousness and/or lies are being told from this person.

Now then, if you think he was nervous, what was there to be nervous about?

please lets not start talking about that, I mean if you wanna talk about nervous then look at bush during the first debate. Looks mean nothing.

As you can see, I'm not one brainless fool who will stoop to say "OMG Kerry should be president because he's better looking!!!!" (Which is true ONLY by opinion).

I did say "looks (and the likes).."

I talked about body language. Obviously, body language is an important part in speech, debate (and others).

So, I think I'm not "shallow" as to notice these things, but I'm rather detailed, don't you think?

Anyway, my point was that Edwards didn't do such a good job with body language while Cheney looked composed, and though his hand movements were exaggerated, it is KEY in speech. That makes:

Cheney 1, Edwards 0 (unless you want to prove otherwise).

Yes, lets keep points... I think it'll be fun.

uninspiredfae: Even though we disagree (on almost everything.) you're one of the few people in debate who's opinion I admire and I want to make it clear that I would never personally attack you and I was not saying you were shallow I was saying that some people who think "or edwards is wayyy cuter I will vote for him." sorry if I have problems making myself clear over the internet.

anyways: my point, if you are talking about body language I still think Bush's was ALOT worse then Edwards. I mean his young, and people expect a lot from him. This was his first "VP debate" and he probibly had a lot of pressure.

Thank you.

Yes, Edwards and Kerry did bettter than Bush and so did Cheney on body language. But I was keeping scores between Cheney and Edwards and their debate.

they aren't going to have another debate are they? If so, wouldn't that be a tad fruitless. haha.

Scores are for the VP debate only of course. We were discussing how well/badly they did on the their debate so I wasn't refering to what's going to happen later.

ahh... I just read that their will be one more VP debate we shall keep score then eh?

I didn't hear about that just yet...

But to answer your question: ABSOLUTELY.

I liked the fact that Cheney was more classy in the debate.

Edwards stooped low enough to mention Cheney's family, and Cheney retaliated with a legitimate argument with the fact that Edwards is one of the most inexperienced VP candidates the US has seen in many decades.

Cheney:1
Edwards: -1

Okay grammar nazi. I'll remember next time so you don't have to cry about it.

You still have failed to address the fact that you have no sense of humor. You're what? A junior in high shool? Look kid, you're not even legal yet. Lighten up. Turn off your computer screen every now and then. Breathe a little. Hug some trees.

And I'm a she, darlin'.



Do you make it a habit to not read the post before replying? Reread it again and come back to me.

I'll make my position clear since apparently, kryogenix does not know.

People are talking about this thing with a party line between their legs at all times. That's a huge f**king mistake--it always has been and it will continue to be.

Cheney was better than I thought he'd be, no joke: my prediction about his heart exploding on TV didn't come true, but it would've been pretty funny. I don't think he was playing any "elder, reserved" role--I think he got f**king told a couple of times and didn't have any way to come back from it. When he was right, though, he was right (eg. Edwards' horrific Senate attendance record) and I audibly was like, "OH SHIT, DICK CHENEY. DICK CHENEY!" etc.

Edwards' statistics weren't all right, which is a problem (I was yelling at the TV, "NO! NO YOU IDIOT THEY'RE GOING TO RUIN YOU!") but his message was completely on. The guy's got enormous balls to say some of the things he did during the debate, and if they get elected and follow through I'll be extremely happy.

My honest opinion is that when Cheney managed to make valid points, he was great. But more often than not he seemed to choose talking about "FLIP-FLOPPING" (TM GOP2004) rather than what was just said, which allowed Edwards to smack him the f**k down. I don't know what everyone's talking about with dude losing his cool--I think that of the two, Edwards was way, way, way less angry throughout the entire thing. They'd cut to Cheney and he'd be sitting there with brimstone smoking out of his eyes, you know? Edwards dodged less and jabbed more.

However, in the end, I still believed Cheney was triumphant.

The problem with this forum is that the people here are either so left wing or right wing that you guys can't get past the bullshit and see a win for a win. I'm a democrat and cleary, Kerry won the first debate and Cheney won the second. And I can honestly say that without being biased.




No. My friend (WHO IS A REPUBLICAN) made it. It just goes to show that just because you're on the other side, it doesn't mean you have to masturbate furiously everytime someone cracks a joke.