There was a debate????
 

Says reams about the impression Edwards made as a senator.

The Kerry Doctrine, in a previous formulation.
 

Search for my old posts on this. Edwards is right to the extent that the type of marriage would violate important public policies of another state, but I don't want to be accused of turning the FFCC into the new polygamy so you will have to search for my old posts (complete with citiation to authority) if you want to know more.

There was a debate????
 

It's Edwards' fault that Cheney lied! Good one.

There was a debate????
 

Edwards was such a nonentity as a senator that a meeting with him left no impression at all, not even the memory of the meeting.

Lied? Here we go again.

Look up some of your old elementary school math papers. Check out all of the lies you told back then. They should be marked in red.

(ETA - in any event, it was a wondrous line, and, in an era when youz guyz can use Haliburton the way you do with nary an outward showing of dishonor, I'll feel quite okay about this line.)

Spin, Spin, Spin
 

I know you're trying to put the best light on this Bilmore, especially since he seems to be making things up right and left, but you do realize it's getting comical, don't you?

I'm sure he was just presiding over the Senate in an undisclosed location, and those times he met Edwards -- that was really his body double, not Cheney himself.

There was a debate????
 

Ty has already slam-dunked you on this whole issue, but either you can argue that although they were sitting next to each other, they didn't necessarily technically meet because they might not have been introduced or interacted, OR you can argue that although they interacted throughout a television show on which they both appeared, they were not physically in the same place so they have not technically met.

But you just can't have both. That's ludicrous.

Dawn!
 

OK, Now I understand! These are the standards you hold a Republican president to. Suddenly, it all makes sense.

Dawn!
 

Great! Finally, you understand that I disapprove of your calling a Republican mistake a lie, while calling a Democratic lie a New Talking Point! I sense all sorts of common ground between us at last!

There was a debate????
 

Let's fisk what he said:

See US Constitution, Clause 4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

This is an undeniable fact. The Constitution further provides for a president pro tempore to preside over the Senate in the absence of the vice president.

I've yet to see this refuted by anyone. Cheney is reportedly quite the hit in the lunchroom

When, golly gee. I cannot imagine why Cheney would be on Capitol Hill when the Senate is in recess.

Then again, Kerry and Edwards don't even show up on Capitol Hill when the Senate is in session.

There was a debate????
 

You are right. We should put all this partisan bickering behind us and look for a more likely explanation. It's easy to lose sight of what's really important in an election year, and I would like to reach across the aisle to Vice President Cheney. How is his health? Have his arteries hardened? That could explain all the memory lapses, you know.

There was a debate????
 

That a damn LIE! Last I saw, Kerry had made 4.1% of the votes this year! Take it back!

There was a debate????
 

Per my earlier post, Cheney apparently was lying when he said that he presides over the Senate most Tuesdays, unless "most" means twice in four years. Unless my facts are wrong -- and they may be -- or he's weaseling in some way I didn't catch, that was a lie.

I believe that Cheney believed, in his heart of hearts, that he had never met Edwards before last night, so in that sense, you are correct that he was not lying, since he did not have an intent to deceive. The real problem is that he was misinformed -- uninformed, really -- and relied on his faulty memory and didn't bother to check. That sort of sloppy arrogance seems to be par for the course with Cheney, who has a real problem with the truth.

Run Away! Run Away!
 

In keeping with the recent Monty Python Theme, I note that you seem outclassed and overwhelmed by "Bunny" Ty

http://arago4.tn.utwente.nl/stonedea.../21-attack.jpg

You may want to try a new approach.

There was a debate????
 

Kate O'Beirne said it best, in that Edwards is so fucking irrelevant that Cheney probably didn't even know or care who he was the - what, three - times they were at a prayer breakfast or getting yelled at by Matthews.

That being said, they should have anticpated being spun immediately thereafter with the CSPAN photo capture.

The Kerry Doctrine, in a previous formulation.
 

I use "global" to mean a lot of things. I frequently say things like "speaking globally," "perhaps we should try for a global settlement" and "from a global perspective." I, like you, hear a lot of businesspeople use the term similarly. It is understood by even the semi-sophisticated to mean "comprehensive" or "applying to all involved parties." People like Condoleeza Rice certainly understand that when kerry said "global test" as part of a broader 30 second explanation of why he beleived America DID NOT need foreign approval to act in its security interests, he meant that we ought to at least consider the "global" implications of our actions in making such unilateral moves.

For people like Gillespie, Rice and the other GOP heads to jump on the talk show circuit and say Kerry advocates a "global test" before using US defensive force is just as bad as the Dems saying stupid things like Dick Cheney is crookedly using the war to fatten Halliburton. They know goddamn well what Kerry said in the context of his full statement as well as their own experience with the use of the term "global".

You're being disingenuous here. You know better.