Cheney-Edwards Debate

[RockRambler]

Elizabeth Dole is unforgettable because she is very charming, enthusiastic, and never forgets a name. When I first met her in 1987, I said then that she needed to run for president instead of her husband. She is one of those people that lights up any room she is in.

I met in Edwards for the first time in 1991, and he is also very personable, even more so now I would think. He and his wife have impressed me over the last few years for their strong faith...those type things you don't see on the 6 'clock news.

I'm sure there are people who know/met Bush and Cheney that would speak highly of them also.

 

[swaimj]

Both debaters were very pointed and direct. Since I like Cheney, and since he made no major mistake, and since Edwards did nothing to distinguish himself, I feel that Cheney won.

I felt that Edwards started repeating himself a little toward the end, ran out of things to say, and got really rattled on the next to last question in which he was not supposed to use Kerry's name.

Key point: Edwards was asked directly if Kerry had been president, would Saddam Hussein still be in power. He AVOIDED answering that question!!! Incredible!

Cheney's best point? Here are two choices: One was when he stated that it is easy for Kerry to talk tough in a national campaign, but that doesn't cover up his 30 year record of being on the wrong side of defense issues. Two, was when he explained that Kerry voted against supplies for the troops during the time that Howard Dean from on his way to winning the Democratic nomination in an attempt to derail him. Cheney argued that if Kerry could not stand up to Howard Dean, how could he stand up to Al Quaida? Those examples illustrate Cheney's strength as a debator. He can boil complex events and issues into a few cogent sentences and point out the opponent's contradictory stances with a pointed question. That was brilliant work on Cheney's part.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, I'm really surprised to see that you had the most positive impression of Cheney. You're predictable, I'll give you that.

But I didn't watch that much of it ... probably less than 15 minute all told. I simply thought Cheney handled himself better, gave better answers during the time I saw, and looked more calm and in control. It shouldn't be surprising at all if I am so predictable. That seems a contradiction to me. But in fact, as I already stated, I didn't watch that much so I don't really know. I was giving impressions based on the limited watching I did, which was apparently more than you did. So I guess that leaves me in a better place to comment on it than you.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Cheney also swore Edwards in. Seems that should stick in his memory. Apparently, there are a good number of photos from various events, showing them in close proximity.

Either Cheney got flustered by being confronted about his collaboration with terrorist states, or he just has a really, really bad memory.

Sure, That's it.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Larry, I wasn't commenting on the debate, I was commenting on you.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, I wasn't commenting on the debate, I was commenting on you.

I know ... I am honored you took the time to express your thoughts ... ... However, I was commenting on the debate, which it seems I am slightly more qualified to comment on since I watched at least some of it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Okay, I have to confess. I just told my first lie on the Baptist Board (Galatian and Daisy, make sure you bookmark this so next time I ask you, you will have evidence).

I am not really honored that PJ took time to express his thoughts. In fact, I don't really care one way or the other that he commented on me. I have certainly had worse said about me than that ...

 

[The Galatian]

(Barbarian suggests Cheney might have been flustered or confused when he falsely denied having met Edwards before)

Sure, That's it.

Or he could have been lying, I guess. He's done that before, too.

 

[Gup20]

I thought it was a landslide victory for Cheney... especially in the foreign policy portion of the debate. It was as though Edwards was a little nippin' dog and Cheney landed a good slap to send the mutt scurrying off to it's corner.

Previous to the debate, I was watching Fox News and Bill Oreilly. He had former Clinton strategist Dick Morris on his program. They were discussing the possible debate strategies and what each candidate would say. Oreilly said that Edwards was going to come out strongly and try to drive home the point that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al Quida or ABL. Dick Morris just rolled his eyes at that and stated something pretty profound - He said "Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor either" but that our war against Hitler and Germany in WWII was entirely the right thing to do. Why? Because Facism was our enemy. Later Communism was our enemy (the Cold War). Now, Terrorism is our enemy. It is WW3 - a global (or world wide) war on terrorists and terrorism. Just as Germany had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Just like Germany had EVERYTHING to do with Pearl Harbor... Iraq had EVERYTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks.

This shows the fundamentally narrow view the Democrats, and especially Kerry/Edwards have in the global war on Terror. We wouldn't be safer with Kerry/Edwards, and I think Cheney did a great job pointing to both Kerry and Edward's record in demonstrating why. They do not understand what it takes to lead in a time such as this... they do not even understand the fundamental idea of a war against Terror.

Directly after the 9/11 attack I am sure Bush and Cheney and the administration sat down and said - who, why, what, where? It was (rightfully so) determined that this was no one country. It is Islamic hatred of God through Israel and the USA. How do you keep this from happening again? You can't do it without changing the World. You have to change these people fundamentally. You couldn't do that in the environment of the Middle East which promotes terror and terrorism and terrorists on a large scale - then exports that throughout the world. Something fundamentally has to change AT THE SOURCE. Bush is a man of God... he knows as well as we do that the only thing that meets human need is Jesus. The only way to be able to present Jesus to the Middle East is to bring freedom and democracy (as opposed to dictatorship and theocracy). You see... they embrace terrorism because of their values and religous beliefs. The USA was founded on christian ethics, values and morality. We can't impose our morality and values on them when it goes against their religious theocracy to do so. There has to be freedom to choose Jesus.

You have all seen Bush say repeatedly that "freedom is God's gift to the world". That is Bush's policially correct way of saying that the only way they are going to stop the terror is to accept our version of morality and values - the morality and values we find in the Bible of peace and liberty - and the only way they can choose these values over terror is in a free, democratic environment.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Hbr 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

These verses make clear the SOURCE of terrorism... it is the Devil. It says that fear of death makes subject to bondage. Satan is the one who had the power of death.

Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

2Ti 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

Gal 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only [use] not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

So who is God's man in this debate? He is the one who will listen to His voice and follow His commandments, and lead this country towards the path of bringing the gospel of Jesus to the whole earth. It looks to me like Bush/Cheney are on that path - and Bush is definately demonstrated his willingness to hear from and be led by his relationship with Jesus.

 

[Gup20]

oh.... and


w00t! Twins!

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by Gup20:
So who is God's man in this debate? He is the one who will listen to His voice and follow His commandments, and lead this country towards the path of bringing the gospel of Jesus to the whole earth.

I would say that God's man was in the third-party debate that the major media ignored. I haven't seen anything from either Edwards or Cheney to make me think they are interested in "bringing the gospel of Jesus to the whole earth", unless that is what they are doing by setting up an Islamic state in Iraq.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
(Barbarian suggests Cheney might have been flustered or confused when he falsely denied having met Edwards before)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Sure, That's it.

Or he could have been lying, I guess. He's done that before, too. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, your approach certainly is much less complicated than actually researching the facts for myself.

 

[Gup20]

I would say that God's man was in the third-party debate that the major media ignored. I haven't seen anything from either Edwards or Cheney to make me think they are interested in "bringing the gospel of Jesus to the whole earth", unless that is what they are doing by setting up an Islamic state in Iraq.

I guaranty you there is much more Christian evangelizing happening right now in Iraq than has happened in the whole of the last decade. The same goes with other 'Islamic' states.

For example, my church has people in contact with Christian Pastors in Afghanistan right now... they say that all the pastors are hoping Bush get's re-elected because tolerance for Christians is more widespread since Bush declared "you are either with us or against us", and conditions for preaching the gospel are dramatically better than it was under Clinton. Why? Because the Afgan leaders fear Bush, and don't want to do anything that would be considered anti-american. The same thing is happening in Pakistan. This would certainly not have happened under a Gore administration. As these regions gain more freedom and democracy they will be open to the Gospel.

 

[The Galatian]

Well, your approach certainly is much less complicated than actually researching the facts for myself.

That's what they say;
"You can teach knowledge, but you can't teach experience."

By all means, do it yourself.

 

[JGrubbs]

How about Saudi Arabia, where converting from Islam to Christianity is punishable by beheading? What about the millions of Christians who have fled from Iraq since the invasion because they are not allowed to participate in the new government and fear persecution?

I'm sure there are some who are not persecuting the Christians right now because we have our military in Afghanistan to keep an eye on them. Should we maintain a permenant military presence in these Islamic states in order to "spread the gospel"?

I don't see how an Islamic "democracy" that has all of it's laws based on the Koran and will not let the Christians participate in the government will be "open to the Gospel."

 

[Gup20]

Yet both Iraq and Saudia Arabia let the movie "The Passion of The Christ" be played in their movie theatres. Both countries are undergoing significant advances toward peace and freedom (iraq moreso than SA). Sure there are some cities where there is danger, but overall it's getting better. This kind of change doesn't happen instantaneously. But - even if they don't turn immediately, milllions who would not have had the chance are at least HEARING the gospel of Jesus for the first time. What does the Word say about hearing the gospel?

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Now maybe I am wrong... maybe we should elect Kerry and let him lead a more sensitive war on terror... let these countries continue to do what they want while trying to convince them to see it our way. But I don't think so. I think we need to resist the work of evil in the earth, as that is our role, and you do not RESIST by rolling over and playing dead. To resist is to apply a greater force against evil than evil is exerting upon us... only then is evil resisted.

Jam 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

In other words... choose God's man (bush or kerry - truely there are no other choices right now) and resist evil, and evil will be defeated.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Okay, I have to confess. I just told my first lie on the Baptist Board (Galatian and Daisy, make sure you bookmark this so next time I ask you, you will have evidence).

I've documented the evidence of several many times whether you accept it or not.

 

[JGrubbs]

Originally posted by Gup20:
In other words... choose God's man (bush or kerry - truely there are no other choices right now) and resist evil, and evil will be defeated.

Evil will never be defeated till Jesus Christ comes back. Islamic terrorism has been in this world for over 1400 years, and will continue long after George W. Bush is gone from the Whitehouse.

 

[Gup20]

oh... perhaps I should also mention that, in general, following God's Will probably wouldn't pass the "Global Test", as the Word says Narrow is the Way and Few there be that find it.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well, your approach certainly is much less complicated than actually researching the facts for myself.

That's what they say;
"You can teach knowledge, but you can't teach experience."

By all means, do it yourself. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, no no no. I'd much rather have you tell me what to think.