There was a debate????
 

Says reams about the impression Edwards made as a senator.

The Kerry Doctrine, in a previous formulation.
 

Search for my old posts on this. Edwards is right to the extent that the type of marriage would violate important public policies of another state, but I don't want to be accused of turning the FFCC into the new polygamy so you will have to search for my old posts (complete with citiation to authority) if you want to know more.

There was a debate????
 

It's Edwards' fault that Cheney lied! Good one.

There was a debate????
 

Edwards was such a nonentity as a senator that a meeting with him left no impression at all, not even the memory of the meeting.

Lied? Here we go again.

Look up some of your old elementary school math papers. Check out all of the lies you told back then. They should be marked in red.

(ETA - in any event, it was a wondrous line, and, in an era when youz guyz can use Haliburton the way you do with nary an outward showing of dishonor, I'll feel quite okay about this line.)

Spin, Spin, Spin
 

I know you're trying to put the best light on this Bilmore, especially since he seems to be making things up right and left, but you do realize it's getting comical, don't you?

I'm sure he was just presiding over the Senate in an undisclosed location, and those times he met Edwards -- that was really his body double, not Cheney himself.

There was a debate????
 

Ty has already slam-dunked you on this whole issue, but either you can argue that although they were sitting next to each other, they didn't necessarily technically meet because they might not have been introduced or interacted, OR you can argue that although they interacted throughout a television show on which they both appeared, they were not physically in the same place so they have not technically met.

But you just can't have both. That's ludicrous.

Dawn!
 

OK, Now I understand! These are the standards you hold a Republican president to. Suddenly, it all makes sense.

Dawn!
 

Great! Finally, you understand that I disapprove of your calling a Republican mistake a lie, while calling a Democratic lie a New Talking Point! I sense all sorts of common ground between us at last!

There was a debate????
 

Let's fisk what he said:

See US Constitution, Clause 4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

This is an undeniable fact. The Constitution further provides for a president pro tempore to preside over the Senate in the absence of the vice president.

I've yet to see this refuted by anyone. Cheney is reportedly quite the hit in the lunchroom

When, golly gee. I cannot imagine why Cheney would be on Capitol Hill when the Senate is in recess.

Then again, Kerry and Edwards don't even show up on Capitol Hill when the Senate is in session.

There was a debate????
 

You are right. We should put all this partisan bickering behind us and look for a more likely explanation. It's easy to lose sight of what's really important in an election year, and I would like to reach across the aisle to Vice President Cheney. How is his health? Have his arteries hardened? That could explain all the memory lapses, you know.

There was a debate????
 

That a damn LIE! Last I saw, Kerry had made 4.1% of the votes this year! Take it back!

There was a debate????
 

Per my earlier post, Cheney apparently was lying when he said that he presides over the Senate most Tuesdays, unless "most" means twice in four years. Unless my facts are wrong -- and they may be -- or he's weaseling in some way I didn't catch, that was a lie.

I believe that Cheney believed, in his heart of hearts, that he had never met Edwards before last night, so in that sense, you are correct that he was not lying, since he did not have an intent to deceive. The real problem is that he was misinformed -- uninformed, really -- and relied on his faulty memory and didn't bother to check. That sort of sloppy arrogance seems to be par for the course with Cheney, who has a real problem with the truth.

Run Away! Run Away!
 

In keeping with the recent Monty Python Theme, I note that you seem outclassed and overwhelmed by "Bunny" Ty

http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedea.../21-attack.jpg

You may want to try a new approach.

There was a debate????
 

Kate O'Beirne said it best, in that Edwards is so fucking irrelevant that Cheney probably didn't even know or care who he was the - what, three - times they were at a prayer breakfast or getting yelled at by Matthews.

That being said, they should have anticpated being spun immediately thereafter with the CSPAN photo capture.

The Kerry Doctrine, in a previous formulation.
 

I use "global" to mean a lot of things. I frequently say things like "speaking globally," "perhaps we should try for a global settlement" and "from a global perspective." I, like you, hear a lot of businesspeople use the term similarly. It is understood by even the semi-sophisticated to mean "comprehensive" or "applying to all involved parties." People like Condoleeza Rice certainly understand that when kerry said "global test" as part of a broader 30 second explanation of why he beleived America DID NOT need foreign approval to act in its security interests, he meant that we ought to at least consider the "global" implications of our actions in making such unilateral moves.

For people like Gillespie, Rice and the other GOP heads to jump on the talk show circuit and say Kerry advocates a "global test" before using US defensive force is just as bad as the Dems saying stupid things like Dick Cheney is crookedly using the war to fatten Halliburton. They know goddamn well what Kerry said in the context of his full statement as well as their own experience with the use of the term "global".

You're being disingenuous here. You know better.

Run Away! Run Away!
 

I assume you sent off your DNC-templated Letters to Editors and participated in the listed polls last night, too?

(Chiming in on a wrong idea simply makes for louder wrongness.)

There was a debate????
 

The DNC tells us they were on the campaign and need to cut them some slack.

There was a debate????
 

Didn't Ty refute this with a link?

The Kerry Doctrine, in a previous formulation.
 

The next day, Kerry tried to explain what he was speaking of. He used the phrase "around the globe". Try basic english, seb. Sometimes a cigar is just a . . . . .

Don't you Just Hate That?
 

Yeh, facts suck.

There was a debate????
 

I will agree with this wholeheartedly. I think Edwards made so little of an impression on him that he really didn't think that they'd met. Any interaction that they had was probably wasn't particularly meaningful or memorable to Cheney.

I think the real problem is that he knew or should have known that a statement like that one would have sent every blogger in the 'verse out for photographs, quotes and convenient talk show hosts/pundits to prove him mistaken or, dare I say it, a liar. Before making a statement like that he should have been dead certain that the pictures that have been floating around all day weren't gonig to bite him in the ass. He could have easily have said something like "before today, I've never interacted with you in any way having to do with your being in the Senate (over which I preside)." But he made it an absolute "I've never met you before," which is very easy to refute and bolsters the image that he has as being fairly cavalier with facts.

There was a debate????
 

I believe that Kerry believed, in his heart of hearts, that he had been in Cambodia on Christmas eve, so in that sense, you are correct that he was not lying, since he did not have an intent to deceive. The real problem is that he was misinformed -- uninformed, really -- and relied on his faulty memory and didn't bother to check. That sort of sloppy arrogance seems to be par for the course with Kerry, who has a real problem with the truth.

Don't you Just Hate That?
 

Steeling yourself for November 2nd?

There was a debate????
 

Although this is a stupid argument to have and it was an even dumber thing for Cheney to say, it really says more about Cheney's unwillingness to reach across the aisle to work in a bi-partisan fashion (a bullshit campaign promise he and bush rammed down our throats -- funny how he said later in the debate that he was disappointed it hadn't happened more often during their term) on anything.

TM

There was a debate????
 

Determining who's fault it was is about as important as determining whether it was you or your girlfriend who farted while you watched television last night. Your time is better spent finding an unused spot under your desk on which to wipe the latest treasure you've picked from your nose.

If this is THE issue you took away from the debates last nite, don't vote. You're a fuckin retard.

There was a debate????
 

Cheney said this:

• "Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session."

Cheney plainly implied that he is "in the Senate most Tuesdays" in his role as the president of the Senate -- that he was there on official business, and Edwards is not. This is not true. As I posted, Cheney has presided over the Senate on exactly two Tuesdays in the last four years.

Your defense of Cheney is that he's hanging out in the lunchroom, even when he's not the "presiding officer" of the Senate. In point of fact, I read this morning that Cheney meets with the GOP Senate leadership regularly -- maybe this is what you're referring to -- but that he generally declines to meet with Democrats. But when he's in the lunchroom, he's not acting as the presiding officer, which is what he was implying.

If a Democrat had said stuff like this, you'd be all over it like flies on shit. I'm sure it was fun for you to see Cheney go after Edwards like that. Too bad for you it turned out like this.

There was a debate????
 

Ah, yes, treat the party of Michael Moore and "Bushitler" and Soros with respect and as open a mind as they treated him.

(This is the politics board. If we cut out all stupid arguments, we might as well just run penis enlargement ads.)

OK, Class. CLAAAASSSSS!
 

DTB, you have to listen very carefully here to get exactly what Cheney said.

Just because he said in one sentance that he is the presiding officer of the Senate and in another sentance that he is up at the Senate every Tuesday, it doesn't mean he is presiding over the Senate on Tuesdays.

And just because he said this in the context of suggesting that he and Edwards should have had some quality time together because he spends so much time in such an important capacity in the senate, doesn't mean he is actually physically anywhere near the Senate floor when he is "up at the Senate". It turns out he is actually somewhere in the building having lunch, and thought Edwards must (a) eat and (b) do so on Tuesdays with Republicans. Either that or he thinks a Senator ought to be sitting in the lobby holding open the door when the Vice President enters the building.

Remember, it's not a lie. It's just spin.

There was a debate????
 

Did you even bother click on the link? It shows who was the "acting" pro-tempore on a particular day. It has nothing to do with attendance or rank.

A lot of them are Democrats. Last I looked, the Dems don't run things in the Senate.

But most importantly, he never said he "presides over the Senate on most tuesdays"

Don't you people know how to read?

There was a debate????
 

I guess Cheney is a man's man. I overheard a table of women discussing how hot they find Edwards last night.

dtb, now, Cheney apparently said "I am president of the Senate" (or whatever -- said he has X title). And he said "I am up in [aside -- the man claims to be from Wyoming -- puh-leaze] the Senate most Tuesdays." He did not say he is presiding over the Senate most Tuesdays. He did not say that he was on the Senate floor most Tuesdays. Hell, maybe he stops by to pick up a cup of coffee in Orrin's office on his way from some briefing.

The fact that most people would interpret "I am president of the Senate. I am up in the Senate most Tuesdays." to mean that he was in the Senate chambers (or whatever it is called) is irrelevant.

Wait, no, that can't be right. Because he was trying to convey that Edwards is NOT up in the Senate like ever.

Shit.

I hate when I'm fucking around with language to mislead people and realize I'm contradicting myself. It's so embarrassing.

There was a debate????
 

Did you even bother click on the link? It shows who was the "acting" pro-tempore on a particular day. It has nothing to do with attendance or rank.

A lot of them are Democrats. Last I looked, the Dems don't run things in the Senate.

But most importantly, he never said he "presides over the Senate on most tuesdays"

Don't you people know how to read? [/QUOTE]

Yes, I read the link. He's only ever in the Senate as a presiding officer if there's a vote he needs to be the tie-breaker for. He's not hanging out there (on the Senate floor) on most Tuesdays.

There was a debate????
 

If that single post of mine was the post you decided to riff off of for one of your trademarked dangerfield rants, you're the fuckin [sic] retard. Get a grip.

There was a debate????
 

First you accuse Kerry of sneaking notes into the debate. Then you accuse the Dems of not being able to read. Well, which it?

slave flip-flopped!

There was a debate????
 

"He said there was an imminent threat!"

"Haliburton!!"

"Bush's draft!!"

"Forged papers on Nigerian yellowcake!!"

Fuck, Ty, when are dems going to STOP saying stuff like this?


Do you think that, simply by naming your desired outcome, you make it so? You guys all paid way too much attention to MacAullife (sp?) this week. Lots of letters claiming victory only work if no one else watched.

There was a debate????
 

If they were handing out terms based on sloppy arrogance, Bush would be crowned emporer through 2050. You didn't really just suggest that Kerry is more sloppy than Bush, did you? Do you have on demand cable? If so, watch the Bush/Kerry debates.

Bush all but looked like a character out of one of those "This is your brain on drugs" ads.

"This. Is. What 20 years of gin does to a good Presbyterian. Any questions?"

Kerry is a word-parsing liar. Bush is the sloppy good honest god-fearing man. Get your media creations right man, lest you find youself voting for the Frenchman this Nov.

There was a debate????
 

Let me get this straight.

You want to ignore the plain language and look to the "implication"

Whenver Kerry says crap about a "global test", you want us to ignore the implications and look to the actual words he says.

Just trying to keep track here.

There was a debate????
 

You got that right.

Andrew Sullivan last night. http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index....94909728674453

There was a debate????
 

Douchebag.

There was a debate????
 

Turn what around? Bush is leading in nearly every poll

There was a debate????
 

You've never been hotter.