Not the debate I watched.

Post #177,959 by Ashton 10/6/04 3:33:21 AM 10/6/04 3:34:28 AM Reply	Not the debate I watched. I agree (with others) - no clear 'winner' as in previous; but what does winner Mean? Is it like IQ #. This ain't digital. This was mixed 'wins', item-by-item IMO. Agree too, that the moderator's questions were lame and allowed too much weaseling.. but Cheney's effort to swicth 'casualty count padding' to include Iraqis! was beyond the pale: were they a party to the coalition of the bemused? The Two + Poland (though just recently recusing themselves) VS the 32ish who paid all but $5Bof the last 'thisshallnotstand' war? A patently false semantic trick; anyone who didn't spot it imediately is likely too uninformed to get anything else out of the material. would those include: our 'collateral damage' from Day1? Women and children? Army casualties before/during/after the Flash n'Smash shows? Would these be the same folks who don't ever rate their own cell on the spreadsheet of the maimed? (just as those numbers for US new multi-plegics don't make it to the digital counters on news shows, either). Pshaw. Format provided no time to cross on that Stupid ploy... Clearly Cheney's vast experience in the DC practice of bafflegab was his strong suit + the zinger on Edwards' voting record. OTOH, for those who haven't been noticing shit for about 1000 days - Edwards reminded about the disconnect of dropping Afghanistan (into now fortified enclaves + local dopelords) in order to pursue the PNAC fantasy of resolving 500 years of grudges within the attention span of a Murican Tee Vee addict. Ditto re Halliburton's present legal difficulties over past behaviour == when the Veep was the CIEIO. Numbers were fudged (or just not responded to - Cheney's long suit). So I think Cheney might have leveraged his experience in tactics expectedly-well, but Edwards got in lots of quips (for that small group who just might follow up on some of them - if these were really news, to some few effete undecideds. Cheney was utterly lame in the last question re "uniting - dividing" and how all this here polarization just might have come about -- gosh, I just Don't Know How all the problems just.. happened.. Leave mind at door for this grade of pabulum. It could have been worse, sillier; but nobody can possibly expect Serious Debate here; anathema to the daily language murder we insist upon. Can't imagine one of these shows being stupider than the 2000 sham.. Well, yes I guess I Can. moi edit: add B Edited by Ashton Oct. 6, 2004, 03:34:28 AM EDT Not the debate I watched. I agree (with others) - no clear 'winner' as in previous; but what does winner Mean? Is it like IQ #. This ain't digital. This was mixed 'wins', item-by-item IMO. Agree too, that the moderator's questions were lame and allowed too much weaseling.. but Cheney's effort to swicth 'casualty count padding' to include Iraqis! was beyond the pale: were they a party to the coalition of the bemused? The Two + Poland (though just recently recusing themselves) VS the 32ish who paid all but $5 of the last 'thisshallnotstand' war? A patently false semantic trick; anyone who didn't spot it imediately is likely too uninformed to get anything else out of the material. would those include: our 'collateral damage' from Day1? Women and children? Army casualties before/during/after the Flash n'Smash shows? Would these be the same folks who don't ever rate their own cell on the spreadsheet of the maimed? (just as those numbers for US new multi-plegics don't make it to the digital counters on news shows, either). Pshaw. Format provided no time to cross on that Stupid ploy... Clearly Cheney's vast experience in the DC practice of bafflegab was his strong suit + the zinger on Edwards' voting record. OTOH, for those who haven't been noticing shit for about 1000 days - Edwards reminded about the disconnect of dropping Afghanistan (into now fortified enclaves + local dopelords) in order to pursue the PNAC fantasy of resolving 500 years of grudges within the attention span of a Murican Tee Vee addict. Ditto re Halliburton's present legal difficulties over past behaviour == when the Veep was the CIEIO. Numbers were fudged (or just not responded to - Cheney's long suit). So I think Cheney might have leveraged his experience in tactics expectedly-well, but Edwards got in lots of quips (for that small group who just might follow up on some of them - if these were really news, to some few effete undecideds. Cheney was utterly lame in the last question re "uniting - dividing" and how all this here polarization just might have come about -- gosh, I just Don't Know How all the problems just.. happened.. Leave mind at door for this grade of pabulum. It could have been worse, sillier; but nobody can possibly expect Serious Debate here; anathema to the daily language murder we insist upon. Can't imagine one of these shows being stupider than the 2000 sham.. Well, yes I guess I Can. moi Collapse All History
Post #177,975 by mmoffitt 10/6/04 9:38:15 AM Reply	Thank you. Since when do we count enemy deaths as our own? One thing apparently no one has picked up on is when Edwards raised the Gay Marriage issue. He made the point that it does not rise to the level of the Constitution (although he could have better made the point that the Constitution is not a document typically used to restrict or prohibit rights). Cheney left Dubya hanging. He did not choose to respond or in any way attack Edwards position. bcnu, Mikem "The struggle for the emancipation of the working class is not between races or religions. It is one of class against class. Every trace of anti-Semitism, or any form of race hatred cannot assist the oppressed, it can on the contrary only aid the exploiters. Workers of all nationality, religion or creed must stand together against the common enemy: capitalism." -Ted Grant
Post #177,977 by admin 10/6/04 9:40:58 AM Reply	No, I've read a few comments about that. One (the source of which escapes me right now) pointed out that the only time Bush was mentioned was as the gay basher, in contrast to Cheney's position. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #177,982 by mmoffitt 10/6/04 10:27:21 AM Reply	Ah. Okay. But there was one Edwards flub of note, imo. I thought for sure when Cheney brought up the newspaper calling him "Senator Gone" that it was a perfect time for Edwards to say something like, "Well, Mr. Vice President, if you're getting some of your information from local newspapers, perhaps you should heed the advice of the President's local newspaper who just endorsed John Kerry and me." He missed it, and I doubt the opportunity will come again. Rats! bcnu, Mikem "The struggle for the emancipation of the working class is not between races or religions. It is one of class against class. Every trace of anti-Semitism, or any form of race hatred cannot assist the oppressed, it can on the contrary only aid the exploiters. Workers of all nationality, religion or creed must stand together against the common enemy: capitalism." -Ted Grant

Welcome to IWETHEY!