Can the Big Dick help the little Widdler?
- Thread starter Pure
- Start date
English Lady
Erotic English Rose
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Posts
- 48,011
I knew this would be political. but I clicked anyway.
Ever hopeful -EL
Ever hopeful -EL
G
Guest
Guest
Wonderful title!
Why Pure, you're such a tease!
If Cheney sticks to topic and doesn't go off on one of his rabid dog rants, he should do well.
On the other hand, he isn't as photogenic as Edwards, and TV loves to focus on youth and beauty. (And Edwards does have the brains to go with his looks.)
Of course, as the old quote goes, youth cannot compete with age and treachery.
(It's still a toss-up for me right now.)
Why Pure, you're such a tease!
If Cheney sticks to topic and doesn't go off on one of his rabid dog rants, he should do well.
On the other hand, he isn't as photogenic as Edwards, and TV loves to focus on youth and beauty. (And Edwards does have the brains to go with his looks.)
Of course, as the old quote goes, youth cannot compete with age and treachery.
(It's still a toss-up for me right now.)
G
Guest
Guest
Pure, I hope you do not mind my posting this (vs. a new thread), it's quite funny if you don't think too hard about the truths underlying the humour. P.
----------
Jon Carroll - SF Chronicle, October 5, 2004
It's the moment we've all been waiting for. This evening, for the first time, we may get an answer to the vital question: Dick Cheney, double- dealing plutocrat or incarnation of evil?
A great deal hangs on the answer. Alan Smithee, emeritus professor of answers at UC Berkeley, said: "If Cheney is indeed the incarnation of evil, that posits the existence of a supernatural universe, and leads inevitably to further questions not generally considered by the electorate."
Among these questions, suggests Smithee, is the very viability of monotheism itself. "If Cheney is the sole incarnation of evil, as many suggest, Satan's only representative on the earthly plane, then the Hindu and Buddhist communities are going to have to, as they say, go back to the old drawing board. This would be even more true if, during the debate, Cheney caused the earth to open up and John Edwards to fall from a precipice into the yawning jaws of Hades."
Experts agree, however, that such an outcome is unlikely. The Bush campaign understands that hints of any direct satanic connection at this point would be counterproductive. Even if Dick Cheney does indeed have the power to cause kine to sicken, probably he would not do that. The nation's kine ranchers would probably swing to the Democratic column.
On the other hand, if Cheney is joined onstage by a host of evil flying monkeys and other demons, polytheism is still very much in play. Indeed, the small groups of Democrats who do worship evil flying monkeys would see the manifestation as a gesture to their side, and flock to the polls in higher- than-usual numbers.
The Edwards campaign says -- wait, where is the Edwards campaign? It is apparently campaigning in the swing states, including Benny Goodman, Tommy Dorsey and Harry James. In a statement Sunday, the Edwards campaign said it would never use a dopey joke that hardly anyone would understand.
The Edwards campaign has consistently taken the high road, refusing to accuse Cheney of any covert evil powers. "We think he's a bad man, yes," said an unnamed Edwards spokesman, "but we do not think that he has, say, cloven hooves. Not that we have ever seen his feet." The unnamed spokesman would not say whether the Cheney campaign had stolen his name. "I think I just left it back at the hotel," he said.
On the other side of the ledger, proof that Cheney is merely a double- dealing plutocrat would be seen as a definite win for the vice president's camp. "If I were advising Mr. Cheney," said William Wilson, who managed Adm. James Stockdale's run for the vice presidency on the Tiny Squeaky Voice ticket, "I would tell him to stick with Halliburton all the way. That would be the talking point. All he ever wanted was a little sugar for his buddies; he never in his life trafficked in human souls -- which is not, quite frankly, a high- profit business."
Cheney's camp insists that he is merely a humble single-dealing plutocrat. "It's always been the same deal," said a named Cheney spokesman. "Control energy policy, cut his hunting buddies in on the action, impugn the patriotism of anyone who disagrees. The vice president has been consistent all the way through. His life is an open book, except for the redacted sections."
The named spokesman insisted that his name not be used. "People get your name, they write it on a piece of paper and put it inside a wax figure and set fire to the figure -- well, you just don't want that to happen," adding that "Dick Cheney" is not the vice president's real name.
In tonight's debate, look for the telling moment when Dick Cheney attempts to smile. Or look for the moment when John Edwards attempts not to smile. One of those will decide the debate, unless something else does.
----------
Jon Carroll - SF Chronicle, October 5, 2004
It's the moment we've all been waiting for. This evening, for the first time, we may get an answer to the vital question: Dick Cheney, double- dealing plutocrat or incarnation of evil?
A great deal hangs on the answer. Alan Smithee, emeritus professor of answers at UC Berkeley, said: "If Cheney is indeed the incarnation of evil, that posits the existence of a supernatural universe, and leads inevitably to further questions not generally considered by the electorate."
Among these questions, suggests Smithee, is the very viability of monotheism itself. "If Cheney is the sole incarnation of evil, as many suggest, Satan's only representative on the earthly plane, then the Hindu and Buddhist communities are going to have to, as they say, go back to the old drawing board. This would be even more true if, during the debate, Cheney caused the earth to open up and John Edwards to fall from a precipice into the yawning jaws of Hades."
Experts agree, however, that such an outcome is unlikely. The Bush campaign understands that hints of any direct satanic connection at this point would be counterproductive. Even if Dick Cheney does indeed have the power to cause kine to sicken, probably he would not do that. The nation's kine ranchers would probably swing to the Democratic column.
On the other hand, if Cheney is joined onstage by a host of evil flying monkeys and other demons, polytheism is still very much in play. Indeed, the small groups of Democrats who do worship evil flying monkeys would see the manifestation as a gesture to their side, and flock to the polls in higher- than-usual numbers.
The Edwards campaign says -- wait, where is the Edwards campaign? It is apparently campaigning in the swing states, including Benny Goodman, Tommy Dorsey and Harry James. In a statement Sunday, the Edwards campaign said it would never use a dopey joke that hardly anyone would understand.
The Edwards campaign has consistently taken the high road, refusing to accuse Cheney of any covert evil powers. "We think he's a bad man, yes," said an unnamed Edwards spokesman, "but we do not think that he has, say, cloven hooves. Not that we have ever seen his feet." The unnamed spokesman would not say whether the Cheney campaign had stolen his name. "I think I just left it back at the hotel," he said.
On the other side of the ledger, proof that Cheney is merely a double- dealing plutocrat would be seen as a definite win for the vice president's camp. "If I were advising Mr. Cheney," said William Wilson, who managed Adm. James Stockdale's run for the vice presidency on the Tiny Squeaky Voice ticket, "I would tell him to stick with Halliburton all the way. That would be the talking point. All he ever wanted was a little sugar for his buddies; he never in his life trafficked in human souls -- which is not, quite frankly, a high- profit business."
Cheney's camp insists that he is merely a humble single-dealing plutocrat. "It's always been the same deal," said a named Cheney spokesman. "Control energy policy, cut his hunting buddies in on the action, impugn the patriotism of anyone who disagrees. The vice president has been consistent all the way through. His life is an open book, except for the redacted sections."
The named spokesman insisted that his name not be used. "People get your name, they write it on a piece of paper and put it inside a wax figure and set fire to the figure -- well, you just don't want that to happen," adding that "Dick Cheney" is not the vice president's real name.
In tonight's debate, look for the telling moment when Dick Cheney attempts to smile. Or look for the moment when John Edwards attempts not to smile. One of those will decide the debate, unless something else does.
LadyJeanne
deluded
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2004
- Posts
- 5,885
I read an interesting profile in the paper of Lynne Cheney. Apparently, she had been elected homecoming queen her senior year in high school and her boyfriend had broken up with her, leaving her without a date. Dick had been dating a friend of Lynne's for 3 1/2 years, but Lynne decided she couldn't be Mustang Queen without a date, so she invited Dick and he dropped his girlfriend faster than a greased pig and the rest is history.
The article portrays Lynne as being the brilliant half of that couple, and had she not been a Republican woman, would most likely be one of the candidates herself.
Lynne's friend is still bitter toward Lynne, but feels compassion for Dick - says he's too stressed out and she'd like to give him a hug and tell him to "Lighten up, honey."
Landing the Lineman --> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/03/LVGL98UT5O1.DTL
The article portrays Lynne as being the brilliant half of that couple, and had she not been a Republican woman, would most likely be one of the candidates herself.
Lynne's friend is still bitter toward Lynne, but feels compassion for Dick - says he's too stressed out and she'd like to give him a hug and tell him to "Lighten up, honey."
Landing the Lineman --> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/03/LVGL98UT5O1.DTL
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
It's easy to hate 'im and hard to debate 'im.
Cheney is said to be nearly impossible to debate because he replies to every question with the unblinking certainty of a true ideologue. For people who don't know any better, he gives the impression that he doesn't just believe something to be true, he was there. He saw it. He knows. No matter what the topic.
The man is a custom-built liar if ever there was one. Look at his eyes: nobody's in there! If you don't believe him, you might believe you should pretend you do, because he is one scary dude.
Cheney is said to be nearly impossible to debate because he replies to every question with the unblinking certainty of a true ideologue. For people who don't know any better, he gives the impression that he doesn't just believe something to be true, he was there. He saw it. He knows. No matter what the topic.
The man is a custom-built liar if ever there was one. Look at his eyes: nobody's in there! If you don't believe him, you might believe you should pretend you do, because he is one scary dude.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
LadyJeanne said:
Mustang Queen?
I hadn't heard that one. How amazing is it, during the administration that gave us John Ashcroft and the Sanctity of Marriage Act - the very people, mind you, who wanted to drape the naked breasts of Blind Justice - that so little has been made in the Liberal Media of Lynne Cheney's having published a pornographic novel?
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Tonight. What do people think.
Cheney, on the surface seems solid and assured. Examined closely. he ignored many questions and inconvenient points by Edward. Got in a few knees to Edwards' groin. Somewhat lacklustre.
Seemed to have command of facts, but probably made them up, a bit. e.g, the Salvador success story.
Edwards, a bit wordy and seems to promise the moon. Some good points about Halliburton and some about national safety, but hard to tell if they would upset people. Also he has the old 'are you better off?' How will that go over compared to Cheney's blinkered optimism.?
Perhaps a few Americans will wonder about if they're being told the truth.... one can never tell. or tell if that would affect their vote.
Cheney, on the surface seems solid and assured. Examined closely. he ignored many questions and inconvenient points by Edward. Got in a few knees to Edwards' groin. Somewhat lacklustre.
Seemed to have command of facts, but probably made them up, a bit. e.g, the Salvador success story.
Edwards, a bit wordy and seems to promise the moon. Some good points about Halliburton and some about national safety, but hard to tell if they would upset people. Also he has the old 'are you better off?' How will that go over compared to Cheney's blinkered optimism.?
Perhaps a few Americans will wonder about if they're being told the truth.... one can never tell. or tell if that would affect their vote.
LadyJeanne
deluded
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2004
- Posts
- 5,885
I tried to get as empassioned about the Cheney-Edwards debate as the Bush-Kerry debate, but it was hard. Real hard. There they were, Corporate and Legal, head to head, babbling politely in attempts to make points from which they would not deviate.
Cheney denied right away that he had suggested there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. But there clearly was an established Iraqui track record with terror, he said. Subtle distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.
Whatever. I think the question should be: did you influence the decision to invade Iraq because of the potential financial benefits to Halliburton, the company where you have over 200,000 stock options pending? Or did you influence the decision to invade Iraq because you believed Iraq was a serious threat to America and THEN finnessed the benefits to Halliburton, the company where you have over 200,000 stock options pending? Oh, never mind. I wouldn’t believe what he said anyway.
I also thought it was too bad that Edwards didn’t say something about Bush’s own level of experience at the time he took office when Cheney was scoring hits on Edwards’ lack of experience. I don't suppose Dick would have replied with, Sen. Edwards, I know George Bush, and you’re no George Bush.
Cheney denied right away that he had suggested there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. But there clearly was an established Iraqui track record with terror, he said. Subtle distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.
Whatever. I think the question should be: did you influence the decision to invade Iraq because of the potential financial benefits to Halliburton, the company where you have over 200,000 stock options pending? Or did you influence the decision to invade Iraq because you believed Iraq was a serious threat to America and THEN finnessed the benefits to Halliburton, the company where you have over 200,000 stock options pending? Oh, never mind. I wouldn’t believe what he said anyway.
I also thought it was too bad that Edwards didn’t say something about Bush’s own level of experience at the time he took office when Cheney was scoring hits on Edwards’ lack of experience. I don't suppose Dick would have replied with, Sen. Edwards, I know George Bush, and you’re no George Bush.
Last edited:
