Cheney Vs Edwards...Lets Get It On!!!

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by sooner333

countdown to the factcheck.com server meltdown begins now.

It's dead!

[sooner333]

How much has Sbarro donated to the Edwards campaign?

[Neuqua]

I love Sbarros!

Point for Edwards!

[Celeval]

Ouch. Point to Cheney, there, I think.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Oh my, when Edwards starts touting Kerry's service...man, didn't they figure out the people just don't care.

Obviously coming from someone who has never served........Thanks.

[Peregrine]

Heh, they've reached the next level, it's gone from delivering unreplyable snipes in the last 30 second reply period to doing so when asked the next question. What's next, one of them sucker-punching the other when they turn to the interviewer to reply?

[Suicane75]

Edwards has some goofy facials.

[Ben E Lou]

How many times are these guys gonna say "complete distortion", "not true", "misleading the American people."

[Celeval]

Point to the moderator. "...even though you didn't talk about the last question..."

[Peregrine]

Skydog, that's a complete distortion of my record, you have the facts dead wrong (that's another one.)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Heh, they've reached the next level, it's gone from delivering unreplyable snipes in the last 30 second reply period to doing so when asked the next question. What's next, one of them sucker-punching the other when they turn to the interviewer to reply?

Point, Peregrine

SI

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Obviously coming from someone who has never served........Thanks.

Now, I didn't mean it didn't matter...not at all. Of course I respect all people who served, including John Kerry. However, I think it makes no difference to whether he should be president or not, and I think most Americans agree. WWII, our greatest war, was in a time of a non-vet, FDR...crippled with polio. That's not to say that serving isn't appreciated...its just that it doesn't give a real bonus when it comes to being president.

[Flasch186]

Cheney's ahead in my book

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I think the most important thing we learned tonight is that Dick Cheney actually is alive...

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

How many times are these guys gonna say "complete distortion", "not true", "misleading the American people."

Until the American people finally figure out that politicians are full of shit? Too bad that they think there are still people looking to politicians for answers and solutions and hope.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

I think the most important thing we learned tonight is that Dick Cheney actually is alive...

And kicking (and biting).

SI

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Now, I didn't mean it didn't matter...not at all. Of course I respect all people who served, including John Kerry. However, I think it makes no difference to whether he should be president or not, and I think most Americans agree. WWII, our greatest war, was in a time of a non-vet, FDR...crippled with polio. That's not to say that serving isn't appreciated...its just that it doesn't give a real bonus when it comes to being president.

OK, I agree.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Cheney's ahead in my book

Edwards is a professional trial lawyer trying to be a politician. Cheney is a professional smoke-room politician.

[sterlingice]

I think it's time to bring out our chant from when Lou Pinella and the Devil Rays come to town: "THROW-A-BASE! THROW-A-BASE!"

SI

[Peregrine]

Yeah I came into this debate figuring Edwards was going to have to do a lot of dancing to prevent just being gutted, Cheney is an experienced debater, has been in government forever, and has a healthy mean streak which is good for debating.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Edwards is a professional trial lawyer trying to be a politician. Cheney is a professional smoke-room politician.

Sometimes I worry about your blood pressure.

[Buccaneer]

Those mad smiley thingys (is that an oxymoron?) are a good release.

[Flasch186]

the attendance card is silly, they know the outcomes and the votes before they even go, so if youve got someone who has something more important to do, ie. run for president, go to a college graduation, etc. then you might not have to go.....but ill admit. To Joe shmo on his couch, its effective.

[sooner333]

I would mention that Edwards is just not responding to this one because its a tough one to respond to...but they've been both doing it all night.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

To Joe shmo on his couch, its effective.

...which is one reason that it is becoming more and more difficult for a long-time Senator to become President.

[sooner333]

No, its completely necessary if you want to ban it everywhere in the United States. However, I dont' agree with it, I think its a state issue and, in fact, I get to vote on it in November.

[Flasch186]

point edwards re: gay marriage ammendmant

[Crapshoot]

Funny- at the OOTP boards ( a more liberal board) people think Edwards is winning. Interesting example of people on both sides hearing what they want to hear...

[sterlingice]

I'm glad they danced around the gay marriage question. Cheney because his boss wants a ban against marriage for a group his daughter is a group of, Edwards because if he attacks it looks like a bully and ass. They both seem very classy about that, especially considering the mood and timbre of the debate so far.

SI

[Ben E Lou]

Was Edwards just blowing smoke on a legal technicality there, or can another state *really* decide that my wife and I aren't married?

[Flasch186]

im for Kerry in the election but Cheney is doing better than edwards, at least more effective in getting his points across to the undecideds IMO

[Crapshoot]

I believe the point being made SD is that a state doesnt have to recognize your marriage according to Edwards...

[SackAttack]

Edwards is absolutely incorrect on the point he just made re: gay marriage. The Constitution requires the several states to grant 'full faith and credit' to the legal proceedings that take place in each of those states. If I marry my girlfriend in California, that marriage is valid in all 50 states. Likewise, if a homosexual couple is allowed to marry in Hawaii, the Constitution requires that the other 49 states treat that as a valid union.

The other 49 states are not required to conduct wedding ceremonies for gay couples, and that's the distinction that Edwards completely misesd. California is not required to allow gays to marry. They are required to treat as valid a gay marriage that takes place in another state.

[sterlingice]

I wish I knew more about medical liability reform.

SI

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Aadik

I believe the point being made SD is that a state doesnt have to recognize your marriage according to Edwards...

Right, that's what I heard him saying. That's interesting.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I'd like to see Cheney debate Bush...

I wonder how that would turn out?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Was Edwards just blowing smoke on a legal technicality there, or can another state *really* decide that my wife and I aren't married?

He's full of crap. Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution another state cannot say you and your wife are not married. If the state that married you had jurisdiction over you (ie, you were a domicile of that state) then no state can take that away (with the POSSIBLE exception if Congress passes a law saying they don't have to, but that may violate full faith and credit as well... depending on how the SCOTUS rules).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

I'd like to see Cheney debate Bush...

I wonder how that would turn out?

He'd mop the floor with Bush. But as I stated earlier in this thread, that's not the issue. He really can't feasably run.

SI

[amdaily]

Cheney was one punch away from a KO, but since Halliburton has came up he has been paralzyed in responding to all charges Edwards has made.

[sooner333]

I think there is the Protection of Marriage Act that *allows* states to not recognize gay marriages. However, I don't know if that's actually constitutional.

[Antmeister]

Regardless of which way this goes, I am very impressed by the moderator. She is asking much tougher questions than the moderator for Kerry and Bush. I wish she would have moderated that one.

[SackAttack]

In other words, what I said, ISiddiqui

Isn't it lovely that a Senator of the United States either doesn't understand the Constitution he's sworn to defend, protect, and uphold, or just doesn't give a shit when it's politically expedient to outright lie about what it says?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Antmeister71

Regardless of which way this goes, I am very impressed by the moderator. She is asking much tougher questions than the moderator for Kerry and Bush. I wish she would have moderated that one.

Agreed. She's hitting the hot button issues for both side (Haliburton, Cheney and gay marriage, Edwards as a lawyer preaching against lawyers, etc). Have we had a question on Edwards's inexperience yet?

SI

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

He's full of crap. Under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution another state cannot say you and your wife are not married. If the state that married you had jurisdiction over you (ie, you were a domicile of that state) then no state can take that away (with the POSSIBLE exception if Congress passes a law saying they don't have to, but that may violate full faith and credit as well... depending on how the SCOTUS rules).

hmm- then how is the conflict of a state that allows gay marriage and a state that expressly bans it resolved ? Is the idiotic proposed constitution amendment a end around to this ?

[Peregrine]

Regardless of which way this goes, I am very impressed by the moderator. She is asking much tougher questions than the moderator for Kerry and Bush. I wish she would have moderated that one

One thing I read was that the campaigns switched the debate order at the last minute, originally they were going to have the domestic issue debate first, and the national security one last, but they switched it around and it left the moderators scrambling to rewrite their questions, etc. Might be one reason it was like that.

[Flasch186]

now theyre both in the gutter....point Cheney

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by sooner333

I think there is the Protection of Marriage Act that *allows* states to not recognize gay marriages. However, I don't know if that's actually constitutional.

It's not. The Constitution would have to be amended in order to outright prohibit gays from marrying, or else all 50 states would have to independently ban gay marriage. As it stands, if even one state permits it, the other 49 are required to recognize it, but not to conduct ceremonies of their own.

[sooner333]

Its too bad Cheney didn't say that...but actually, most people wouldn't have understood and instead, it might have been the right move to just leave it at that...since both sides fundamentally agree that gay marriage is wrong.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It's not. The Constitution would have to be amended in order to outright prohibit gays from marrying, or else all 50 states would have to independently ban gay marriage. As it stands, if even one state permits it, the other 49 are required to recognize it, but not to conduct ceremonies of their own.

that's what I thought Sack- thanks. Can a lawyer here clear this up for me ?

[sterlingice]

Um... who are the counterparts of 25-44yo black women? Young black women? Black grandmothers? 25-44yo white women? 25-44yo men? Perhaps that's being a bit nitpicky.

SI