vice presidential debates

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion and Debate' started by mikeschiavone, Oct 6, 2004.

  1. mikeschiavone

    mikeschiavone Active Member

    1,166
    6
    38
    what are your opinions on the debates. i personally thought they were very good, with both sides bringing up pretty good/damaging facts.

    i think it was a tie. im still voting for kerry though.
     
  2. giventofly

    giventofly I like Hops

    669
    16
    0
    I got more out of last night's debate than the presidential debate, which put me to sleep.
     

  3. atypical

    atypical Guest

    182
    4
    0
    Edwards is a brat. Change your opinion, or your vote won't count. JK


    I thought the VP debate was better than the P debate, but all candidates need to answer the question asked, not spew rhetoric and tow the line. I thought the Haliburton fiasco was damaging, but so was Edwards absence record. Mudslinging at it's finest. The whole gay marriage part was GAY, I wonder what Cheney's daughter thinks of that. The Dems. not voting for supplies for troops they helped send to war was, I think, the clincher tho. Can't refute the whole Dem. wavering on the issue, I can see why Kerry says wrong war wrong place wrong time- because he believes it- he would have pussyfooted around and perhaps gone to war after a few more attacks on the US, he's just not a warrior (Kerry "oooh I got a bandaid, gimme a purple heart and send me home"). Bush'll spend the money and take the risk, cause he's got balls- and his balls are against the wall, so I feel he will take the necessary steps to prevail. Not an easy job, and you couldn't pay me to do it, so I'll vote in the one that wants it most- Bush.
     
  4. mikeschiavone

    mikeschiavone Active Member

    1,166
    6
    38
    it sucks that our president irrationally went to war with iraq. thats why i dont want him there for the next term.

    his balls have been against the wall for a couple of years, and its only getting worse.
     
  5. tomacropod

    tomacropod Rum Pig

    4,881
    87
    0
    is the presidency really a place where you can justify "balls"? I'd my rather have someone in the top job who had the "balls" to NOT go to Vietnam, and the "balls" to challenge this stupid American notion that politicians have to be warriors.

    - Joel
     
  6. mikeschiavone

    mikeschiavone Active Member

    1,166
    6
    38
  7. giventofly

    giventofly I like Hops

    669
    16
    0
    Yes.....you'd rather an american president have the "BALLS" to do what the polls tell him to?

    lets let communisim spread around the world because we have no balls, let's not end apartheid because that's not popular, Germans invading france? not our problem. children dying of starvation in africa...oh well.

    Could you imagine, for just one minute, what would happen if the US didn't "interfere" with the rest of the world? of course when I say "interfere" you think of the iraqi war...but how about foreign aid? american built fighter aircraft that serve under dozens of different flags? Thwarting the spread of Communisim? ending the second world war? Yeah....i do think we should no longer "interfere" I think we should keep the good life to ourselves, and the hell with everybody else.
     
  8. B1105

    B1105 New Member

    1,308
    5
    0
    cheney seems like a whiney old grandfather, edwards is a bit too peppy for me, whatever, i cant even vote till 2008
     
  9. morley

    morley New Member

    305
    5
    0
    They may have ended WWII but here are some tidbits I found in the archives of the schools library last year. Perhaps it could have ended earlier?


    1 - During WWII the German Luftwaffe [air force] could not fly without tetraethyl lead, an additive used in aviation gasoline. Only three companies could produce this additive during the war... Standard Oil, DuPont, and General Motors. Nazi armaments chief Albert Speer said that Hitler would never have considered invading Poland without the synthetic fuel technology provided by General Motors.

    2 - IBM leased and maintained tabulating machines using their Hollerith punch-card technology to Nazi Germany, these machines played a key role in the Holocaust by allowing Germany to properly keep track of its Jewish citizens before the creation of the camps, and then to help keep track

    3 - Standard Oil shipped fuel to Germany through Switzerland in 1942

    4 - Chase Bank in occupied Paris conducted business with the full knowledge of its New York headquarters.

    5 - Ford trucks were produced for the German army with home office approval.

    6 - Colonel Sosthenes Behn the head of International Telephone and Telegraph Corp. and director of National City Bank worked to improve Nazi telephone communications and produce fighter planes along with the V1 buzz bomb.

    7 - Patents for stainless steel belonged to the Chemical Foundation, Inc. of NY and Krupp Company of Germany. With this US steel companies Carnegie, Illinois, American Steel & Wire, National Tube were under obligation to work with Krupp Company of Germany during WWII.

    8 - Prior to 1939 General Motors invested more then $30 million in German I.G. Farben plants with its executives well aware that 50% of the total wage and salary payroll was being donated to the Nazis. Furthermore Germany's biggest manufactures of armoured fighting vehicles was Opel, a wholly owned General Motors subsidiary.

    9 - The German insurance giant Allianz AG, purchased America's Firemans Fund Insurance Company in 1990 in a $3.3 Billion dollar deal, was sued for failing to pay off life insurance polices of Jewish customers. The firm also insured buildings and civilian employees of the death camp Auschwitz against "careless or malicious actions on the part of prisoners"

    10 - In 1999 Germany's Deutsche bank officials were concerned that their admission that the bank loaned money to build Auschwitz might jeopardize the banks $9.8 billion dollar buyout of New York's Bankers Trust Corporation. This late admission was due to the events caused by Dr. Hermann Josef Abs, the central banks founder and leading banker for Hitler and the Nazis was still the banks honorary chairman until his death in 1994.

    All these acts were legal and known by the President Roosevelt [of the USA] because of general licence ordered by him on December 13 1941. The general licence must be granted to license any transaction or act proscribed by section 3(a) of the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended provided... such transaction or act is authorized by the secretary of the Treasury.

    Vote whoever you want to be in, if you can vote.
     
  10. Blackstick

    Blackstick Well-Known Member

    2,089
    244
    63
    Lets go Joel, your time starts......now!
     
  11. afrobot

    afrobot Aluminum is for recycling

    1,533
    15
    0
    GOOD SHOW MORLEY!!! Off topic ,but right on..

    I hate the Bush admin with all of my bleeding liberal heart . Last night was dead even regardless of whether the polls said Edwards won.

    Bush put both feet in his mouth. I can't wait for Friday night fights round 2.
     
  12. mikeschiavone

    mikeschiavone Active Member

    1,166
    6
    38
    if i didnt know the background of the two in debate, i would of said that it was an excellent debate. both parties brought up damaging info. i hope the friday night fight will be just as good.
     
  13. afrobot

    afrobot Aluminum is for recycling

    1,533
    15
    0
    Kerry's gonna bite an ear off. Then get a zany tatoo on his face.


    I would say the fight is fixed but it's quite obviosly broken irreperably.
     
  14. DanBowhers

    DanBowhers I farted.

    1,480
    12
    38
    I thought the debate was a total blood bath and then all of a sudden they had decided to hold hands and go out to dinner. We only saw the real Chenny once (When he thanked Edwards for his point of view of gay marriage) the rest of the time he was the god damn hunchback of the oval office.

    My hat goes off to Morley, great post.
     
  15. giventofly

    giventofly I like Hops

    669
    16
    0
    I personally cannot stand cheney's question dodging. It is quite annoying. I live in cleveland, where the debate was, and the jobs issues are really important to us here....the largest poverty city in the nation....and cheney waltzed right around the question. That really pissed me off.
     
  16. Faction Bike

    Faction Bike Guest

    632
    0
    0
    morely, you sure you didn't get your dates, company names and geography mixed up? I could have sworn the Haliburton conglomerate didn't get a strong chokehold on things until the late 1960's.........
     
  17. morley

    morley New Member

    305
    5
    0
    Well I could post some modern day info, but it's a little more commen knowledge. And at the time I wanted to respond to the WWII comments and interference aspect made by given to fly. Either way it's more of the same crap just in a different place and time [or pile].
     
  18. tomacropod

    tomacropod Rum Pig

    4,881
    87
    0
    I agree, yes, that the US at times plays a responsible role in the provision of aid and assistance where it's needed most. More often than not, however, it is apparent how self-serving their LARGEST efforts tend to be. The US obsession with the middle east has no real grounds, it's like fighting over outback Australia, except that there isn't any oil under the ground in outback Australia.

    As for communism - it isn't an infectious disease, as many Americans seem to believe, and anyway you didn't send medical supplies to vietnam, you sent people with guns. Communism in a political sense is kind of the opposite to capitalism, the US form of government, and yes, spreading capitalism will make the US more wealthy and powerful. As spreading communism would have made the Viet cong, or the Chinese, or the former (I'm sorry what?) Russians more powerful. Hang on, this looks just a little too much like a mirror image.

    The rest of the world gives the US a lot of room to act as it likes, I don't believe an American president has been in handcuffs in the Hague recently, partly as a result of their power, and partly as a result of their positive influence across the globe as you have mentioned. The time will come, and perhaps already has, when the rest of the democratic world (because nobody else is civilised right?) no longer feels that the nice things the Yanks do justify the selfish destructive things the Yanks do. The figures in Morley's post makes it quite clear that a set of moral ideals are secondary to a nice sense of control and of a stable income to finance further forays into uncapitalised territory.

    You want to solve a lot of world troubles ? Reduce the world's reliance on fossil fuels, remove the impetus behind the MOST destructive actions wrought by the US (and others) for control of this limited resource. I believe this is the most important thing that must be done by the global community over the next 100 years.

    Fuck terrorism, it doesn't have borders or a government, you can't fight it. All you can do is find out why it exists and remedy the underlying problems as best you can. This is what no US president has the fucking BALLS to do. All they can do is pander to the vengeful, aggresive response that the American people have come to expect from being wronged. Calling terrorists "evil" and pushing your own righteousness is not going to help anything. I don't think the US government wants to abolish terrorism, they just want everyone to know without a doubt who has the moral highground.

    - Joel
     
  19. KyleT

    KyleT Guest

    517
    2
    0
    :werd: Joel for President!!
    I agree with every word you said.
    And one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter....maybe not in the case of J.I. or Al-Qaida, they seem to just kill westerners for laughs, but the IRA, and the PLO are fighting for something
     
  20. tomacropod

    tomacropod Rum Pig

    4,881
    87
    0
    you don't go out and kill westerners (and yourselves) just for laughs. The financing, the organisation, the personal sacrifices and the commitment that goes into these "terrorist organisations" is enormous and people seem to think it's done just on a senseless whim. There is information here that I at least am not being provided with. The reasoning behind these actions is clearly significant and deemed worth fighting for. I want to know why these people are so dedicated, and what they are fighting for or towards. The Nazis we know were fighting for purification of their race and the power that they felt they deserved. England over the years has fought for control of land and people and the extension of their imperialist state. The IRA was fighting for independence from England. I don't believe that a petty dislike of Americans is the whole reasoning behind the terrorist causes of Al Quaeda or J.I.

    Does anyone have an actual reason? Have I just missed that newspaper article?

    - Joel