How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 2nd Presidential Debate   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

2nd Presidential Debate

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


25 posted 10-10-2004 02:04 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

ALi, I absolutely do not know what you're talking about, Kerry's record is his record -- http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/issues/legislation.html

his official Senate office site -- lists clearly what he's worked on

as the Junior Senator from Mass, he hasn't gotten plum projects all the time -- but he's even highlighted key events such as deficit reduction in the 80's and balancing the budget in the 90's

what he hasn't talked much about from his Senate tenure is the time he's spent investigating government corruption (a skill he acquired as a prosecutor (um-- that would have been when George Bush's resume only said -- drunk)) one of his major accomplishments being blowing the lid off of Iran-Contra (which could be why Ollie hates him so much?  criminals usually don't like the cops that catch them do they?)
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


26 posted 10-10-2004 02:41 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Well, for what it is worth, for everytime Bush rebutted that Kerry was lying, it pissed me off more.

I'm STILL waiting for someone in our present administration to take responsibility--and I am a swing voter--but if nothing drastic happens between now and Debate 3?

shrug

I don't like Kerry much better than Bush, but I will give him a chance to tell me the truth.

Bush blew his.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


27 posted 10-10-2004 07:00 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thanks, LR, but there is something wrong somewhere and I'd be interested finding out where. After the VP debate our great unbiased press dissected and pointed out every word that Cheney said that they considered suspect in any way. They did not touch the remarks about Edward's attendance and voting record. Had the statements been incorrect they would have gone into a feeding frenzy. Yet the figures you point out indicate the opposite of what Cheney said - and he did not limit his comments to 2003, rather Edward's entire congressional record. So Edwards doesn't refute them, the liberal press doesn't refute them and the figures on the web page you display say the opposite. Are we in Denmark?

....and I doubt that Bush's resume said drunk any more than Clinton's said smoking marijuana but not inhaling. Nice to see you slip a cheap shot in there, though

Serenity, funny how thoughts work. I admired Bush's actions for the same reason you despised them....and that's fine 'cause that's what makes the world go around. Kerry has been spilling whoppers during this entire race. If you notice one recurring theme in the debates committed by Kerry and Edwards it is that they have been calling Bush a liar at every opportunity. If you had a nickel for everytime they've said it you would be rich....and they haven't done it with any class at all. Statements like "Bush lied to the American people", "Bush deliberately mislead the American people", "George Bush is lying to you", and others have been their mantra in each debate. They have not just come out and said that they think Bush had the wrong policies and that they could do better - they have aggressively branded him with personal insults....and he has taken them. It was refreshing to me to see him finally get fed up enough to turn the tables. Bush pointed out that Kerry was lying for one simple reason - Kerry has been lying. Problem is the press will not touch him or bring him to account for anything he says. There wer other instances Bush could have said "Liar" again and he let them go, the comment about the general who was fired because of delivering a bad report to Bush. Kerry had tried to use that one before and it was pointed out to him in black and white that the general had put in his retirement papers in 2002, a year before his report, and that his leaving his post was nothing more than normal retirement but Kerry continues to say, Knowing full well it's a complete fabrication, that Bush fired him.

As far as who you will vote for, I always knew you were a swinger
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


28 posted 10-10-2004 02:12 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well there is something rotten Michael -- and if you haven't picked up on it yet -- the Bush SOP is if they are vulnerable on an issue -- accuse your opponent!  In their Machiavelian mindset integrity is just a matter of fidelity to ideology -- in the eye of the beholder.  If one acts convincingly avuncular and intractable when making a pronouncement they know that some of the people will merely accept what is said as fact.

The Bush/Cheney ticket has tried spinning the Vice-President's remarks about never having met Edwards when there is clear video footage of the two together on at least two occasions and Tim Russert's eyewitness report of multiple meetings backstage at NBC's Meet the Press by saying 'Well, those weren't meetings -- those were casual encounters'.  Prevaricate, distort, quibble, fib -- but I'm not using the harsh word.  It all depends on what the meaning of 'IS' is.

One of the things that's been good about this campaign is the involvement of the electorate.  One of the things the electorate has still not learned to do is how to vet sources.  If you look at the source provided http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/browse.html it is the official site for the Government Printing Office that produces and maintains all government documents.  Note the site's .gov suffix -- only an official government use site can obtain a .gov address.  So what I'm providing you with is the raw, unadulterated, un-opinionated data of the actual Congressional RECORD.

If you look at more raw data -- the transcript of the vice-presidential debate:
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html

you will see that Edwards didn't let the comment go, but, I agree he didn't rebutt specifically;

quote:

Cheney;
The reason they keep trying to attack Halliburton is because they want to obscure their own record.

And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee.

You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.

Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.

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.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

Edwards;
That was a complete distortion of my record. I know that won't come as a shock.

The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.

He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors.

He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of
Nelson Mandela in South Africa.

It's amazing to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry's.



So, here you see Cheney trying to change the subject from Haliburton -- where he knows he's vulnerable -- with a complete fabrication.  And then Edwards, instead of getting into a 'did not,  did too' argument in a format with limited time and no immediate way to offer proof instead opts to use his time to get in a dig at Cheny's Congressional record.

First -- let's take a look at that hometown paper -- it's not exactly Edward's hometown paper -- it's The Pilot from Southern Pines -- but it's only 20 miles away from Robbins -- so we'll give the Vice-President a close-enough.

That paper in an editorial posted this statement http://www.thepilot.com/opinion/100604PilotEditorial2.html

quote:

'Senator Gone'?

It's not every day that a non-daily paper in a small town gets mentioned in a nationally televised debate in prime time. But it happened to The Pilot Tuesday night.

"His hometown newspaper has taken to calling him 'Senator Gone,'" Vice President Richard Cheney said of his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Edwards.

Well, not exactly.

The Pilot hasn't "taken to calling him" anything. In fact, the vice president's obscure reference sent us scrambling to our library. And sure enough, we did publish an editorial 15 months ago, on June 25, 2003, headlined, "Edwards Should Do His Day Job." In it, we noted that Sen. Jesse Helms used to be called "Senator No." And we added: "Four and a half years into his first term, John Edwards is becoming known as Senator Gone."

The reference was to Edwards' frequent absences from the Senate floor as he traveled here and there (mostly there) pursuing his presidential ambitions.

But we also wrote: "Members of the senator's staff point out that
Edwards' attendance record this year has been better than the three other Democratic senators who are campaigning for president - Joe Lieberman, Richard Gephardt and Bob Graham. And the aides also say none of the votes Edwards missed was close, so his presence on the floor would not have changed the outcome."

Thanks for the plug, Mr. Vice President. We're proud to count you among our many readers.



And in this letter from it's former editor; http://www.thepilot.com/opinion/101004B-Hackney.html

quote:

Vice President Dick Cheney would have us believe that his Democratic counterpart, U.S. Sen. John Edwards, has been written off by his hometown newspaper, The Pilot, for a less-than-stellar Senate attendance record.

In contrast, a fair number of The Pilot’s readers in heavily Republican Moore County have accused The Pilot over the months of acting as a shill for Edwards.

Take it from me. Both are wrong.
....

During Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate in Cleveland, Republican Cheney said the newspaper had “taken to calling [Edwards] ‘Senator Gone.’” And it is true that The Pilot wrote that Edwards was “becoming known as Senator Gone” in a June 25 editorial criticizing him for missing too many votes in the Senate while out on the campaign trail.

For the record, I was opinion editor of The Pilot at the time that editorial appeared, but I didn’t write it. Editor Steve Bouser took me off the hook and wrote it himself, not wanting to put this Robbins product in the awkward position of trashing Edwards. I confess that I generally agreed with the editorial.

But Cheney’s implication was that the editorial page of The Pilot was keeping up a steady drumbeat of anti-Edwards rhetoric, and that is utterly false.
.............

So the record should be set straight regarding Vice President Cheney’s implication, just as it should in response to the assertions of Edwards local detractors. The Pilot has not by any stretch written Edwards off as an incompetent absentee, and it has covered the Edwards story as it should, fulfilling its responsibility to serve its readers in a thorough, competent and balanced manner.

I’m proud of my former newspaper for its journalistic integrity.

By the way: I’ve never met Dick Cheney, whom I’ve taken to calling “Vice President Fib.”



But, you ask a good question -- why hasn't your so-called liberal press made a big deal out of it?  Because the video footage is of Cheney lying about never having said there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11.  Because the video footage is of Cheney meeting Edwards.  I've never claimed the press is impartial -- I've said it is commercial.  They want the sizzle -- and the footage -- data is boring.  But, if you read around you'll find that they do cover it in passing -- how big a story is it though? It's just one more campaign distortion by a politician.

I've given you the data -- prove me/it wrong if you can.  But, you can't.

And if the data about Bush being a lush is a cheap shot -- then -- why is Kerry's VVAW involvement admissible?  A resume is a resume.

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


29 posted 10-10-2004 02:26 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

The 'lush' is a cheap shot, as cheap a shot if aimed at any recovering alcoholic.  Yes, I think Bush was an alcoholic up through the mid 80's.  Then he quit cold turkey, went through withdrawals, and stayed sober.  At the very least, give him the credit which millions of Americans have also done: recovering from alcoholism.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


30 posted 10-10-2004 03:00 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Winston Churchill was a functional alcoholic all through his tenure.  The Republicans though -- made a huge deal out of Clinton's 'didn't inhale' statement (particularly recovering Oxycontin addict Rush Limbaugh) and tried to make as much political hay out of it as they could to say it disqualified him from being President (as well as his 'draft-dodging' by seeking deferments to go to college).

So, it's not a shot at the President -- it's a shot at the arguments -- which want to make it an off-limits subject since the President 'repented' and became an Evangelical.  That's great -- but it doesn't make it off limits.  A resume is a resume.

It isn't wrong to discuss that, or Kerry's VVAW involvement or anything else -- we just have to consider what significance the events of youth actually have.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


31 posted 10-10-2004 03:14 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Gee...I wonder why Hoover had so many jobs lost under his tenure...could it have been the Great Depression? Naw...must've been something else.  And, despite what is commonly believed, Presidents do not create jobs, except when Clinton gave jobs to his relatives without them taking the Civil Service exam.  They were quickly let go once word got out.  Nor do they create law.  That is the job of Congress, made up of Representatives and Senators,  with two of the latter wanting to occupy the White House.

Of course Hoover had a net job creation loss during his term because of the Great Depression.

Balladeer confessed that when I said Bush had used the recession handed to him, 9/11 and the war in Iraq as excuses to why during his Administration no jobs were created, that that was "one of the most incredible statements I have seen in any of these discussions."

I don't see why.

After all, World War II cost the U.S $341 billion. Yet, somehow, the economy under Franklin D. Roosevelt still was capable of having at least a net gain in job creation.

Vietnam cost the U.S approximately $200 billion. Yet, somehow the economies under Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon still were capable of having net gains in job creation.

I acknowledge that it isn't the president himself who creates jobs, but every decision can influence the fate or destiny of the economy. Bush claims "the economy is strong, and it's getting stronger!". Yes, it's true that 1.9 million jobs have been created since we lost 2.7 million when Bush took office earlier. Yet, the sign that all these jobs won't be recovered in time show the irresponsibility of this Administration.

Bush had to deal with a recession which started in 1997, corporate scandals (I'm sure the investigations weren't started a few days before Enron went under), and the atrocious attack on the World Trade Center buildings, which cost over 3000 American lives and affected families in over 30 countries, not to mention losses of businesses and corporations.  Oh, and don't forget that most of the job losses have been in the private sector...yanno, corporations that folded due to massive corruption and creative accounting practices.  Let's not forget NAFTA either, which Clinton made a reality (cheaper labor in Mexico and no labor unions).  If Albert Gore hadn't ignored 'smaller' electoral states, he would've had the exact same things to deal with.  I'm not naive enough to wonder if the Democrats would hold him accountible.  Nor do I think the DNC would be trying very hard to deny Nader his Constitutional right to run for President by his using the very same tactics the Republicans and Democrats have used for decades.

Again, these excuses can't cover up the lackluster performance of this Administration.

Now, let me get to the Nader controversy.

I absolutely agree that what some Democrats are doing to keep Nader off state ballots is wrong. I am not happy with that, and condemn those actions. Nader has every right to run because, after all, that is what rings true in democracy. The people decide, and thus they should have as many choices as possible.

Nader has done so much for America these past four decades, from working as a lawyer in Connecticut, to his time being a consumer advocate, to forming the Center for the Study of Responsive Law and the Public Citizen and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, to fighting against corporations and fighting for environmental protection, that is beyond admirable. He is courageous and he is to be honored in that respect.

Nader's positions on issues are also ones I overwhelmingly agree with. I applaud Ralph in defending Roe vs. Wade, how he's fighting for 47 million American workers by offering them a $8 minimum wage, getting rid of gay discrimination in full, that corporations should not be considered as individuals, treating hemp like poppy seeds instead of heroin, the reviving of energy policies, the ending of all logging in national forest areas, ending the war on Iraq, I am in great support of his policies!

I do also believe that Nader is coming off as naive and intransigent in his campaign. He must understand that this is a two-way race we're facing, and Nader himself knows he cannot win this election. Nader should also realize he could be an important role model in 2008 for many liberals and progressives, even many moderate Republicans. The Anybody But Bush bandwagon will dissolve by then and therefore he should be saving his energy for the next election, where I believe he can have a greater chance should this rigid system be fixed with an ITC ballot enforcement, expansion of Indymedia, etc.

Again, I disagree and denounce some tactics Democrats have used to keep Nader off the ballot in some states, as it shows unilateral, adversarial politics. All the same, when Nader continues to deny or fail to admit it, he, himself, has been involved in partisan politics in getting on some state ballots.

The way he has chosen to defend and promote his campaign is what is bothersome, using the likes of Republican lawyers to compete against Democratic lawyers instead of his own integrity to find a place on a ballot.

Nader's colleagues have worked with Peter Antonacci, George Meros, and, most notably, Kenneth Sukhia, a Republican judge who took a role in the 2000 recount then got appointed by Bush the following year for a federal judgeship in attempting to get on the Florida ballot is very troubling to me. All throughout Nader's long and rich history, partisan politics has never been his game, but seeing him work with the likes of those whose politics contradict his is very much out of character and, frankly, hypocritical.

54% of the signatures he got to get on the Arizona ballot were from Republicans alone. Nader received grants from the Oregon Family Council in Oregon, an anti-gay association, when Nader's politics contradict theirs.

Rumors are floating around that Nader has even accepted $75,000 from the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Now, personally, I doubt Nader would go this far, but believing he is being dishonest about accepting previous endorsements, it won't be all too suprising should this story evolve and prove true.

In the end, I can forgive Nader for how he's been operating his campaign for presidency. Nader, overall, remains a breath of fresh air to democracy, and he represents the true definition of democracy as "of the people, by the people and for the people". His politics are what most of us I believe are yearning for and I commend him for continuing to hold them true.

I just hope while we sympathize with him, Nader can do the same for a majority of more liberal Americans depending on Kerry to bring America in a new direction.

Yes, Alicat, I agree it is wrong what some of these Democrats have done in pushing Nader aside from the ballots. All the same, Nader and the Republicans are no stranger to these adversarial politics.

After all, in Afghanistan, all 15 other presidential candidates have withdrawn and alleged election fraud in the first presidential election against U.S.-backed interim President Hamid Karzai. I have read multiple times that before this election, these candidates were saying that the U.S. officials were pressuring them to drop out of the race against Hamid.

In Iraq, it'll be the same story. The White House has developed a secret plan where it would covertly use the CIA to help pro-U.S. candidates win in the upcoming Iraqi election. Some officials within the Bush administration have even defended this plan saying it is "needed to counter outside influence from other countries including Iran."

There's democracy for you. Democracy is "of the people, by the people and for the people" thus I believe the Afghanis and Iraqis should decide how more or less pro-U.S they want their leaders to be.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


32 posted 10-10-2004 04:01 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Granted Noah, and not to offer apologetics, our own history of democratic elections from the onset have been fraught with their fair share of controversies, scandals, and coverups.  Yet we continue and overcome.  I sincerely doubt the first few Presidential elections here came off perfectly, nor that it was easy, nor that there weren't allegations.  Ok, maybe the very first one went smooth.  There was almost unanimous demand that Washington lead the fledgling Republic.  Adams and Jefferson, however, well, they had some downright nefarious schemes to discredit the other, only reaching  reconciliation on their deathbeds, though that tale could very well be apocryphal.  Frankly, I'm surprised the Afghan elections came off as smoothly as they did, this being their first one in over 500 years.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


33 posted 10-10-2004 07:20 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I'm relieved at least there was no major Taliban attack on the day of the election there. I am glad all those innocent civilians could go on that particular day and have a break from the violence that continues to occur there.

Nevertheless, this wasn't a democratic election, and neither will January's election in Iraq.

And Iraq having any sort of election still won't change how senseless this war in Iraq was, and the worst case scenario is this country may not be one Iraq for long. The south provinces already want to seperate from Iraq and form their own autonomous states, and this could be the spiking horse for further division and possible civil war.

The Bush Administration is clearly trying to use Saddam Hussein being a bad guy and thus the world is better without him as a smoke-screen excuse behind this whole war. That's not the reason why the Administration took us in the first place, and they know it.

The obvious has been confirmed. The major U.S. report on Saddam Hussein's pre-war weapons capacity has concluded Iraq had no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion and that most of the country's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed a decade earlier after the first Gulf War. Weapons inspector Charles Duelfer even reported that Iraq's capability in restarting its weapons of mass destruction program was eroding at the time of the U.S. invasion.

The Administration continues to find new ideas in defending this war that contradict their original claims, and as Cheney clearly lied in saying he had made no previous suggestion of a link between Saddam and 9/11 before, this war itself is composed of many great lies.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


34 posted 10-10-2004 07:27 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Noah, the White House has developed a "secret" plan and yet you know about it....I had no idea you have such connections

Of course the Afghan losers are going to scream voting improprieties when they lose. They learned to do that from the Democratic party.

As far as finding your comparisons incredible, the Democrats list economic figures as if 9/11 ever existed and they don't want their listeners to remember it, either. All of their figures begin with the day Bush took office up until now. The finalcial losses, in the billions, the tens of thousands (at least) of jobs lost, the large number of companies that went under, the havoc wreaked on the stock market - none of these count as far as the Democrats are concerned. It'sas if saying Ray Charles can't read as well as he did at age 9 (ignoring the fact that he went blind at 11). Thorw in all of the corporate scandals and failures that they caused, whose roots go back to before Bush took office, and you will then get a better picture of how far we have come. You can't compare 9/11 to World War II. COmpanies did not go out of business, people did not lose their jobs, there was no billions of dollars of loss inside the US during WWII. 9/11 was unique. If the Democrats wanted to be fair (an unlikely scenario) they would compare the figures from when the reconstruction of the economy after 9/11 until now to get figures about how the economy of the nation is going....but they are certainly not going to do that so instead they keep leapfrogging 9/11 to go back to when Bush took office and then moving on from there.

LR, as far as Haliburton is concerned, I refer you to this article adn the facts contained within..

"Why did Clinton give them the contracts to cleanup Bosnia and Kosovo? Why did Clinton give them the contracts in Saudi Arabia?

Could it be that they were the best to get the jobs done?

Cheney argued then that sanctions did not work and punished American companies. The former defense secretary complained in a 1998 speech that U.S. companies were "cut out of the action" in Iran because of the sanctions.

At an energy industry conference in 1996, Cheney said sanctions were the greatest threat to Halliburton and other American oil-related companies trying to expand overseas.


This is why Cheney opposed the sanctions and the current Oil for Food investigation is proving that he was right on the money as so many Countries were going behind the UN's back and even the UN was breaking them. All these sanctions were doing, were hurting us as we were the only Country uphodoling the sanctions along with the UK.

I am an Engineer for the 3rd largest Engineering firm in the World, I am actual a department head and Haliburton is a major competitor of ours, but I will admit, that Haliburton was the only choice for that job.

People do not understand, that Haliburton is made up of a lot of different companies they have purchased over the years. Lockheed Martin, Bechtel Industries, Brown & Root, etc. are all part of Haliburton. Those happent to be three of the biggest Defense Contractors which Haliburton purchased, so Haliburton is by far the biggest now. They're really the only firm big enough to take on such a project.

All these people who keep saying they received a no bid contract do not know all the facts. It's tue they received a no bid contract, but this was for the Oil pipeline cleanup only. This was the most important of course, so Oil would keep flowing to other Countries dependent on Iraqi Oil and to keep revenue flwoing into Iraq to help with the rebuilding process.

Remember after we went into Kuwait and forced Saddam out? The first thing he did was to start blowing up Kuwaits Oil Pipelines. This is why we gave Haliburton a no bid contract for expediency purposes as time was at the essence, because we wanted to make sure their pipelines stayed intact.


The charge that Halliburton somehow avoided competitive bidding because of unfair influence by Cheney, is flat-out wrong. Halliburton outbid four other companies to do laundry and cooking for the troops — services the private sector can provide cheaper than the Pentagon can. The only major contract Halliburton got without competitive bidding was the Restore Iraqi Oil program — to get oil flowing quickly to help finance reconstruction. Halliburton is the only company in the world with the expertise to handle the range of problems in Iraq, including oil-well fires and pipeline breakdowns. And they proved it: they restored production to pre-war levels three months ahead of schedule.

The company stands to make between a one and three percent profit in Iraq — compared to their normal 15 percent profit margin. And the smears on their reputation have been so disruptive that they’re considering selling off the unit that has performed so well for such little profit. Cheney, despite Democrats’ lies, doesn’t profit personally from any Halliburton work."

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


35 posted 10-11-2004 02:28 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

I guess it is a good thing the internet exists.  I always thought in the modern era the Vice President only presided over the Senate on ceremonial occasions or when a tie is expected and the Vice President's vote is needed to break the tie.

I assumed the president pro tempore (the longest serving Senator of the majority party) is the one who actually presides when the full body is in session and when the chambers are being used for speeches and such, they let one of the few Senators that might be there act as the acting president pro tempore.

Since the Senate most generally meets only on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursdays, I would have found it a pretty standard practice the Vice President would go up to the Senate and meet to discuss the hearings and votes in the upcoming week on a Tuesday when he might actually have some function of importance.

I also would not have been overly surprised before this thread to find out any Senator has a high percentage of voting on roll call votes.  I always thought the system was pretty well set up to insure that result.

A calendar in advance days if not weeks is provided all Senators letting them know when a roll call vote is being held which generally is late in the day on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.  If a Senator is not in the Chambers, you have the fifteen minute period to get there and there are little tricks like the quorum call to drag things out further.

Kind of like those students who never come to class and only show up for tests.  I kind of assumed if you don't show up for the tests, then you probably haven't been to class either.

In any event, I believed the real work of the Senate occurs in committee meetings and hearings.  Attendance at those is unrelated to attending the couple of roll call votes in the full Senate held each week.  

As an aside, in the full Senate, they don't take roll on non-roll call votes so you don't know who was there or not.

Interestingly enough, the Congressional Record can be altered by a Senator up to twenty days.  I even believe that in most committee hearings, the Senators even in roll call votes can cast proxy (by note, telephone)votes or enter votes later. A proviso, the Senator isn't supposed to vote by proxy unless he has some idea what the vote is about.

"You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings of the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee," Cheney said, "You've missed a lot of key votes on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform. … You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate."

That is referencing Edwards.  When Kerry was on the intelligence committee for eight years, he missed over 75% of the intelligence committee hearings.(public)  (that is verifiable in government records) and not in the period of the last two years since Kerry/Edwards quit making any pretense of acting as full time Senators.  

A Republican Senator on the finance committee (probably biased) indicated he has never seen Senator Kerry at a finance committee meeting.

I doubt either Kerry or Edwards would even consider releasing their attendance records on the private meetings, (they have been requested and will be released if the Senators want them released) but what the hey, maybe they are publicity shy and only miss public meetings.

And you have to factor in, that Senators can make a short appearance to get their appearance noted and then leave.  Kerry/Edwards aren't even very good at that.


I only responded because it appeared Balladeer honestly wanted a response to why the media is not jumping to the defense of Kerry/Edwards on the attendance issue and why Kerry/Edwards leave it to the internet to defend them.

I would suspect that is because they understand how the system works and know it cannot be spun except by those who do not understand how the system works.

[This message has been edited by Tim (10-11-2004 05:35 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


36 posted 10-11-2004 06:51 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

RULE I

APPOINTMENT OF A SENATOR TO THE CHAIR

1. In the absence of the Vice President, the Senate shall choose a President pro tempore, who shall hold the office and execute the duties thereof during the pleasure of the Senate and until another is elected or his term of office as a Senator expires.

2. In the absence of the Vice President, and pending the election of a President pro tempore, the Acting President pro tempore or the Secretary of the Senate, or in his absence the Assistant Secretary, shall perform the duties of the Chair.

3. The President pro tempore shall have the right to name in open Senate or, if absent, in writing, a Senator to perform the duties of the Chair, including the signing of duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions but such substitution shall not extend beyond an adjournment, except by unanimous consent; and the Senator so named shall have the right to name in open session, or, if absent, in writing, a Senator to perform the duties of the Chair, but not to extend beyond an adjournment, except by unanimous consent.
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule01.htm




From the Proceedings and 108th Congress Second Session:

October 5, 2004
The Senate met at 9 a.m. and was
called to order by the President pro
tempore (Mr. STEVENS).
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=S10  381&position=all

September 21, 2004
Mr. ENZI thereupon assumed the
Chair as Acting President pro tempore.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=S939  5&position=all

Yes, the Internet is a great tool for educating people how things really work -- and all the data is instantly available, as well as bellicose and bombastic thesis that might seem to allow one to redress facts any way one wishes.  

The misleading statement by the Vice-President was;

"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.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

Which to the casual observer may have a semblance of both a hard-at-work Presiding Cheney and a dawdling Edwards -- whereas -- as the data shows Tim -- neither is true.  Certainly Vice Presidents rarely actually preside -- which is why I found his statement all the more incredible.

Your assertions are no less an obfuscation of the endless and reticulant committees where WORK is rarely done.  Posturing, politicking, and wasting time is a more apt description.  One of the reasons Tom Ridge is quitting is because he spends upwards of 80% of his time going to Congress to testify or sit in on Committee meetings instead of guarding the nation -- it is one of the aims of the 9/11 commission to reform the Congress to eliminate such poppycock.

(you'll have to refresh the above links to get them to load after the new window opens -- for some reason they don't like being directed from here)
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


37 posted 10-11-2004 06:57 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Oh, and -- even better than the Internet Tim, CSPAN -- where we can see a lonely Senator performing his deliberations passionately to an empty floor.  

I'll be back to catch up with you Micheal a little bit later -- but, better, much better
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


38 posted 10-11-2004 07:08 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

I suppose you can quote anything off the internet you wish and try and change the point made, but you have not addressed the fact Kerry and Edwards have a less than stellar record of performing their duties.

I see no refutation of that point, only an attempt to sidetrack the issue.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


39 posted 10-11-2004 08:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you, Tim, for such a well-presented explanation of how the system works and why Kerry, Edwards or the media have not protested Cheney's words. I see no obfuscation at all. As in many cases, figures can be manipulated to present a variety of results.

LR, if Kerry and Edwards were out saving the nation in some way that put their time to better use than sitting in congressional sessions, why haven't they mentioned these worthy endeavors...and why doesn't anybody, even the press, know about them? Laziness and a lack of effort appears to be the more feasible to me...
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


40 posted 10-11-2004 08:19 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

On the contrary Tim, I'm the only one who has offered evidence of anything.  Which is proof that they HAVE performed their duties.

And, offered proof of what the Senate Rules actually ARE regarding a President pro tempore.

You sir, have posted a lot of words.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


41 posted 10-11-2004 09:05 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I suppose you can quote anything off the internet you wish and try and change the point made, but you have not addressed the fact Bush and Cheney have a less than stellar record of performing their duties.

I see no refutation of that point, only an attempt to sidetrack the issue.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


42 posted 10-11-2004 09:11 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I almost forgot this irrelevant tidbit;

quote:

Interestingly enough, the Congressional Record can be altered by a Senator up to twenty days. I even believe that in most committee hearings, the Senators even in roll call votes can cast proxy (by note, telephone)votes or enter votes later. A proviso, the Senator isn't supposed to vote by proxy unless he has some idea what the vote is about.



Proxy voting is allowed ONLY for a committee vote under Senate Rule XXVI and has nothing to do with the voting records I've presented here and should neither be confused with such.


And shock of shocks -- the Senate uses SCHEDULES!!!     What cheats!  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


43 posted 10-11-2004 10:57 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Sorry for dragging this out guys -- I have kids to raise -- interruptions...

As to the changing of the record;

quote:

Senate Rule 12

1. When the yeas and nays are ordered, the names of Senators shall be called alphabetically; and each Senator shall, without debate, declare his assent or dissent to the question, unless excused by the Senate; and no Senator shall be permitted to vote after the decision shall have been announced by the Presiding Officer, but may for sufficient reasons, with unanimous consent, change or withdraw his vote. No motion to suspend this rule shall be in order, nor shall the Presiding Officer entertain any request to suspend it by unanimous consent.
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule12.htm




And on the absenteeism of Senators and Quorum Calls we have Rule 6:
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule06.htm

quote:

1. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. 2. No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave. 3. If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate. 4. Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in order



So, you see, Kerry's and Edward's absences during campaigning are excused....and the Quorum Call is only executable in the event there is not a Quorum present.  
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


44 posted 10-11-2004 11:27 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Hrm.  Well, if nothing else, Edwards is indeed very very ambitious.  First term U.S. Senator, using the last 2 years of his very first term to run for President, before Kerry won the nomination.  Kerry is less ambitious, having waited 20 years in the Senate for his shot.  Which still brings me to another hrm.  If Kerry and Edwards are still so reluctant to speak of their Senatorial experience, then why does the DNC claim that speaking about their Senatorial record is political distortion and character assassination?
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


45 posted 10-11-2004 11:49 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
then why does the DNC claim that speaking about their Senatorial record is political distortion and character assassination?


The DNC has no problem with speaking about it, but lying about/distorting it.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


46 posted 10-11-2004 11:58 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

That certainly clarifies why there's been any talk about their record except by Republicans.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


47 posted 10-12-2004 01:03 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



All I can say is while those from the right are trying to wreck Kerry's campaigh by digging up the past on his record and his protesting after Vietnam, I use Bush's own words on his own record these past four years:

"You can run, but you can't hide!"



The Bush campaign has gone so low as to simply use the word "intent" from the Duelfer Report in defending this senseless war, where he surmised that Saddam may have intended to resume WMD production had the sanctions been lifted, despite making clear there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, had not made any weapons since 1991, had ended all biological research in 1996, and had no capability of making any new weapons.

The Bush Administration even keeps believing "the world is safer, but is not yet safe". What is that supposed to mean?

For one thing, a majority believe it is just the opposite. The war in Iraq has incited or encouraged terrorism in the world.

John Howard can make his happy dance for winning his re-election bid, but he must rest assured two-thirds of his fellow Australians believe the war is only encouraging terrorists in the world.

Only one-third approve of Blair and Berlusconi's handling of the war on terror. Nine in ten are now afraid of terrorist attacks each day in Italy now. Meanwhile, the approval ratings have went up for Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero in their opposition to the war, while more in each country (France, Germany, Spain) than ever believe the war will increase terrorist risk.

What do you have to say in response to this collected opinion that clearly contrasts from that Bush is making? War terrorizes entire communities, thus terrorists are made, period.

You can tell how desperate the Bush campaign is to hiding from the truth that they are counting on Sinclair Network to release their anti-Kerry documentary that runs like a 90-minute extended Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ad.

Carlton Sherwood can do all he wants to complain about the brave, courageous acts of dissent Kerry made after returning home from Vietnam, for him and all the veterans who don't support Kerry have a right to freedom of speech, but as far as Bush's record is concerned:

"You can run, but you can't hide!"

I don't know where you got Ray Charles in these economic comparisons, my friend. All I know is, Bush promised himself his tax cuts would create 5.6 million new jobs. I believe he said that even when the recession was beginning. Instead, we're at minus-821,000 jobs. His promise is currently off by about 6.4 million.

It seems almost nobody is paying attention to this massive swing. We've went from a $236 billion budget surplus four years ago to this $444 billion deficit now. That's the most drastic turn-around ever. Basically, in practical terms, this swing has literally put an invisible monkey on all our backs.

I've heard as much as $1,289 in debt on average has been put on each person in 2003. In 2004, it's slated to currently be raised up to an average of $1,513.

This is almost like someone just comes up to you and gives you $500. It sounds great at first. But then it so happens a thousand more is put to debt on your credit card, and then you won't get that bill until after the election.

And it won't be until months from now until everyone realizes the full pain of this burden, of our mortgaged future ahead.

So, I say one more time to Bush and his record he tries to defend and hide from, the same repetitive words Bush used on Kerry and his Senate record:

"You can run, but you can't hide!"



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


48 posted 10-12-2004 07:55 AM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

I'm a little leary about voting for either one of them....You have to be a little screwed up to want this job right now....and God help all of us even more if something happens to which ever becomes president because the two vice president candidates are damn sure incapable of running this country...particularly Edwards...I wouldn't want him running a one hour photo!! Obviously both candidates are making promises that they can't keep....always been that way, always will be...George C. Wallace is the only candidate that actually did everything he said he'd do as governor...and alot of those things weren't right!!...but he kept his promises....Wonder what past presidents would have done...how they would have handled things if in Bush's shoes?...Would be interesting....some would have left "well enough" alone..others would have made parking lots out of Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, and a few other hell holes.....Considering the circumstances....Bush would have been condemned no matter what he'd done or how he'd done it....How many of us have ordered fellow men into life threatening situations?...How many of you have been ordered into life threatening situations?...(My mouth has put ME into life threatening situations many times..LOL)....Don't listen to any of the rhetoric..the debates are a joke....you did this...you didn't do this...you promised this...you promised that...you'll raise taxes..you only tax the poor...what a crock of crap...think about what YOU'D do if 9/11 happened while you were President?..How would you have handled it?..How would Kerry have handled it?..I believe they both love their country...neither need the money...neither  will probably enjoy the job they're running for...and, if elected, either will be criticized continuously....what the voting public has to decide...is which has the most experience with war...Kerry because he was in one?..Bush?..because he was President during the terrorist attacks on this country and abroad?...I know who I trust right now..and that's not going to sway anyone..but we'd better decide who is the most capable at this time and pray we elect the most qualified..It's been said before as "rhetoric"...but these days and times it's probably true...."The future of this world really may depend on it this time"..

[This message has been edited by Toerag (10-12-2004 09:49 AM).]

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


49 posted 10-12-2004 03:36 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



Oh Toerag, I absolutely agree.

I am really not happy or excited with either of these candidates, and I have said time and time again I don't hate anything more than politics. Politicians are always the most likely people to break promises in any case. I acknowledge Bush is certainly no stranger to that, and seriously think Kerry will break some promise one way or another as any man running would.

And it saddens me, frankly, to see much of this run for the presidency based on who's the better commander-in-chief candidate or who was the better guy thirty-five years ago.

These debates pretty much resonate all the same things the candidates say on the campaign trail. I can imagine Nader being allowed to be represented in these debates and let a mass audience be aware of his intense progressive politics that I think many already agree with, but are simply unaware of. Nader's politics agree with mine far more in comparison to Kerry's, but even Nader himself has conceded he will not win this November. And I believe what you say, Toerag, that "The future of this world really may depend on it this time".

I'm only participating because I am a fond believer in democracy and believe I must participate, led by my morals.

First, I'm voting for one man and not the other because I see the consistent result that over half of Americans believe America is heading in the wrong direction. Why keep punishing ourselves when over half admit they are unhappy? It clearly sends a message, "We need change!" So, let's experiment with the other guy and see if he does any better.

Secondly, though I disagree with Kerry on a number of issues including voting for the resolution for the president to use force in the beginning, and his positions on the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind and NAFTA and several other issues, and am not thrilled with him saying things like, "I'll hunt and kill the terrorists" and increasing the military by 40,000, overall his politics agree with me more than those of Bush, and those of the party.

It troubles me deeply, it really does, voting for someone who could be more pro-war than anti-war, as war is something I don't believe in at all. But I believe millions other more progressive voices out there believe just what I believe; that the time is near for the need of some changes made, but first Bush has to go with this ABB bandwagon going on. That's why Nader's numbers are lower than in 2000, because even Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn believe you won't compromise your principles just by one vote such as this even if some of the politics contradict from your own.

A majority of Americans are unhappy, and tens of millions want change, and they believe the best way to start is removing Bush first because they see him as a threat to democracy in definition. And that is why I feel I'm not compromising anything here, for should Kerry choose to invade Iran or something if elected, I am going to go out on the streets with the volume I have been using on Bush.

I think a Kerry victory will more likely benefit the progressives also. Because if Kerry does a good job, and refrains from starting a war or something, some progressives may have a twinkle of renewed faith in the Democratic Party. If he does a poor job, then I believe many more will see that both major corporal parties are corrupted and have failed the public and many will turn their way to Nader, Cobb and others.

I know that both these candidates make many promises they can't keep. But the promise of change can come to all who participate in this democratic process, and that gives me reason to participate at all.

I liked your commentary, Toerag!



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> 2nd Presidential Debate   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors