Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[bilmore]

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

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.)

[SlaveNoMore]

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

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

[dtb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Let's fisk what he said:

I've yet to see this refuted by anyone.

Didn't Ty refute this with a link?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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."

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 . . . . .

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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

Yeh, facts suck.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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.

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.

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.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Yeh, facts suck.

Steeling yourself for November 2nd?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
Says reams about the impression Edwards made as a senator.

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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's Edwards' fault that Cheney lied! Good one.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
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.

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.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
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

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.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by dtb


Didn't Ty refute this with a link?

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.

[SlaveNoMore]

dtb
Didn't Ty refute this with a link?

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?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
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.

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.