10/4    Ok so who won the debate today?
        \_ Edwards won.  He has better hair, a better smile, and whiter teeth.
          \_ actually this works really well especially with undecided
             women voters. Case in point, Kennedy, Reagan and *Clinton*
        \_ I am a master debater!
           \_ can i master debate you?
        \_ Don't think anyone did, although the fact checkers are going to have
           their work cut out for them with Cheney...VP debate is fairly
           meaningless anyway, Lloyd Bentsen wiped the floor with Quayle
           but look what happened to him...
           \- 1. it's not a debate so in a sense it isnt totally zero sum.
              2. edwards agenda was "i am a non-stupid shallow inexperienced
                 stuffed shirt" ... accomplished, i think.
              3. cheney was ok ... he didnt explode or have vast regions of
                 silence ... which would be sort of reassuring after the
                 unambigious bush failure last time. --psb
        \_ I learned three very important things.  The most important thing
           I learned is that Cheney is so smart, but so wrong - and this
           scares me.  The second most important thing I saw was that
           Edwards and Cheney's performances make Kerry look really good.
           The last thing is that all three make Dubya look very dumb, and I
           don't want a dumb guy "who knows how to be tough", as president,
           surrounded by a bunch of really smart people who all are wrong.
        \_ I just want an explaination of 'global test', nukes to Iran,
           \_ On why basis do you determine that Cheney or Edwards is 'smart'?
              Because they communicate stylishly or slickly, or on the merit
              of their ideas?
              \_ Wait I am confused... how can you determine if someone's smart
                 using either the former OR the latter?  The former is just
                 rhetoric skill, the latter could well be subjective beliefs,
                 independent of any meaningful notion of 'smart.' -- ilyas
              \_ The latter of course.
              \_ I have met Gore, Cheney, and Kerry. Of them, Cheney
                 seemed the most polished, smooth, and professional. Gore
                 seemed smart in a bookish way. Kerry was kind of dopey
                 but friendly. Based only on meeting them I would say
                 Cheney is the smartest and most well-spoken. This is
                 probably true since he actually had a very successful career
                 outside of politics and has served on more than one
                 cabinet. I am not sure what it means, though.
                 \_ Like I said:  So smart, and so wrong - and this scares me.
                    \_ I don't think you got the memo, buddy.
                       Conservative = redneck, hick, gunrack, pickup truck, etc.
                       Liberal = college educated, progressive, intellectual.
                       \_ While I'm serious, you're horsing around, "buddy".
        \_ I just want an explanation of 'global test', bribing Iran
           by effectively giving them nuclear weapons,
           and the humanitarian need in Sudan but not Iraq.
           \_ Ugh, drop it.  He for once (count the number of times bush does
              it) chose his words poorly.  And that's the best thing the
              repubs can grasp onto?
              \_ This was not an accident, it is central to his platform.
                 Please, an explanation.  Building 1000's of nuclear
                 ICBMs is a good idea, but building an ABM technology is
                 bad idea - I don't understand.  BTW, why do you delude
                 yourself into thinking Kerry is something he is not??
                 Its like leftists pretending not to be Marxists.
                 \_ That's certainly misleading of you.  Where has Kerry said
                    we should build 1000s of ICBMs?  In the 1st debate when
                    what is most important for America's safety he said
                    'non-proliferation' and opposing Star Wars II seems quite
                    consistant with this.
              \_ No.  Kerry slipped and said what he's been saying for 30
                 years in public... until he ran for President... but has been
                 trying to hide since declaring.  He's a pro-UN, one-worlder,
                 get permission from other countries kind of guy.  There's
                 nothing wrong with that, per se, but it is not ok for the
                 PotUS to be that way, IMO.  He erred by revealing what he
                 really thinks with that comment.  It was not a simple slip or
                 a poor word choice in the sense you imply.  It was a poor word
                 choice for a man running for President.  You want it dropped
                 because you know it will kill your guy if he has to answer it
                 for real, which he hasn't.  Edwards flubbed it again tonight.
                 The only answer is that he means what he said and that is not
                 an acceptable answer for the PotUS.
                 \_ You offer little of substance to support your partisan
                    conclusion.  It's what you would *like* to be true.
                 \_ He specifically said it doesn't mean "permission from other
                    countries". In other news, when bush says "it's hard" the
                    only answer is that he means his penis.
                    On the permission point, the underlying implication of
                    course is that these other countries and the UN are denying
                    permission to protect ourselves, i.e. they are enemies.
                    Of course it ignores the fact that the case for Iraq being
                    any kind of real threat and needing a prompt invasion was
                    never made. But no, Kerry is a French homo Saddam lover.
        \_ Another interesting fact is that pro-Kerry/Edwards people jammed
           up any available online poll.  CNN quickly changed their question
           when it had been 84% Edwards, and http://latimes.com took it down when it
           was 97% Edwards.  http://msnbc.com still shows 70% Edwards.
           Thanks goes to the DNC e-mail list I suppose.
          \_ Republicans-- older, more mature, less tech saavy.
             Democrats-- younger, less mature, more tech saavy, more
                likely to be young hippies who write script/loops to
                vote on the web sites.