|
The RNC! (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by JM
i wonder if all you left wing lib dems will continue to post dumb ass posts here after Bush gets to lead the USA for another 4 years.
What will you devote so much of your free time to then? obviously, by then you will have realized that all your bitching here was pointless, served no purpose, and hence - you wasted your time.
>JM< |
It's quality posts like these that simply make my nipples hard.
Thanks for your thought-provoking input. It is both stimulating and illuminating. |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
| quote: | Originally posted by JM
i wonder if all you left wing lib dems will continue to post dumb ass posts here after Bush gets to lead the USA for another 4 years.
What will you devote so much of your free time to then? obviously, by then you will have realized that all your bitching here was pointless, served no purpose, and hence - you wasted your time.
>JM< |
Well if you like Bush so much you'll be happy when he rolls through Iraq and Shock and Awe's Iran next.
Do you even live in the US? |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
Something I find pretty amusing in all this is how much time and media space is dedicated to what John Kerry did 30 years while anything that Bush did before up to 40 years of age is not even mentioned anywhere. It's like it's totally off limits to discuss.
In this day and age when the presidential campaign look more and more like a propulaity contest and the character of the person wanting to become president seems to be of the upmost importance, wouldn't it be important to discuss the fact that one of them has a history as an alcoholic and drug-user?
Maybe it's a good thing they are not discussing it but why so much focus on Kerry's persona and not Bush's? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Benedict Miller:
| quote: | Introduction of Senator John Kerry
Democratic Party of Georgia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner
March 1, 2001
It is good to be back in Georgia and to be with you. I have been coming to these dinners since the 1950s, and have missed very few.
I'm proud to be Georgia's junior senator and I'm honored to serve with Max Cleland, who is as loved and respected as anyone in that body. One of our very highest priorities must be to make sure this man is re-elected in 2002 so he can continue to serve this state and nation.
I continue to be impressed with all that Governor Barnes and Lieutenant Governor Taylor and the Speaker and the General Assembly are getting done over at the Gold Dome. Georgia is fortunate to have this kind of leadership.
My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders - and a good friend.
He was once a lieutenant governor - but he didn't stay in that office 16 years, like someone else I know. It just took two years before the people of Massachusetts moved him into the United States Senate in 1984.
In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington.
Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.
John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment. Business Week magazine named him one of the top pro-technology legislators and made him a member of its "Digital Dozen."
John was re-elected in 1990 and again in 1996 - when he defeated popular Republican Governor William Weld in the most closely watched Senate race in the country.
John is a graduate of Yale University and was a gunboat officer in the Navy. He received a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three awards of the Purple Heart for combat duty in Vietnam. He later co-founded the Vietnam Veterans of America.
He is married to Teresa Heinz and they have two daughters.
As many of you know, I have great affection - some might say an obsession - for my two Labrador retrievers, Gus and Woodrow. It turns out John is a fellow dog lover, too, and he better be. His German Shepherd, Kim, is about to have puppies. And I just want him to know ... Gus and Woodrow had nothing to do with that.
Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome Senator John Kerry.
-------
http://miller.senate.gov/speeches/030101jjdinner.htm |
|
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
Absolutely. They're Republicans! They took a shower today, and put on some nice clothes. No patchouli at this convention.
Ditto on Zell's speech too. The "spitball" line is gonna be a classic. Great, great stuff, and contrary to what some will believe here, his speech will be effective -- particularly with the remaining conservative Dems in the south who have been the ones voting to put Zell in the Senate. |
Great same old deceptive stuff. The whole attack on Kerry's defense record has been disproven time and time again here and on snopes or factcheck. How Cheney manages to stand there and nod with a stupid grin on his face while Zell attacks Kerry on that issue was wonderfully entertaining to me ... the ludicrous irony of our times.
| quote: |
Originally posted by Galapidate
He (Zell) would be more believable if he didn't flip flop himself. He said in 2001 that he had full confidence that Kerry could become president.
|
It's better than that. If you go to the dumb guy's website, you can find all his speeches.
| quote: |
Introduction of Senator John Kerry
Democratic Party of Georgia's
Jefferson-Jackson Dinner
March 1 2001
... John [Kerry] has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment.
http://miller.senate.gov/speeches/030101jjdinner.htm
|
I mean really ... at least update your very own website after doing something like this so you don't come off looking like a completely incompetant boob.
| quote: |
Originally posted by NeoPhono
At least you've conceded that flip-flopping causes a loss in credibility. I couldn't agree more.
|
And what issue is John Kerry significantly guilty of flip-flopping on that George Bush isn't? I can find just as many, if not more, examples of Bush supposedly flip flopping as well. I've already disproved the vote on funding the troops "flip-flopping" in the Kerry is a dolphin thread. Respond to my arguments there if you disagree.
| quote: |
Originally posted by imokruok
This is just getting good. Just wait until the specifics on Kerry's three meetings in Paris with the North Vietnamese hit the mainstream media tomorrow.
|
You mean wait until it's brought up at the last minute before the election by a 527, spun, and smeared like virtually everything else? Well it's been out in the media since March.
US law only prohibits citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on matters such as peace treaties. Kerry did not engage in negotiations and did not attend any sessions of the talks. In his testimony to congress he noted that:
"I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties, and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator [Eugene] McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera."
Therefore historical precedent set by US Senators established that his actions were within what was deemed acceptable as a private citizen.
Despite the fact that I don't particularly like Salon that much, they did an excellent article on some of the claims put forth, and debunked them with reliable non-partisan sources:
| quote: |
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Vice President Dick Cheney speaks at the Republican National Convention in New York on Wednesday.
The truth isn't out there
From Dick Cheney on down, the Republican convention's speakers haven't let the facts get in the way of their partisan ferocity.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Tim Grieve
Sept. 2, 2004 | NEW YORK -- Arnold Schwarzenegger told adoring Republican delegates this week that the Democrats should have called their Boston convention "True Lies." But in speech after speech inside Madison Square Garden, Schwarzenegger's Republican colleagues have shown themselves to be truth-challenged. On big points and small, in policy arguments and personal anecdotes, Republican convention speakers have misrepresented, misconstrued, dissembled and dipsy-doodled. You can argue that they weren't lying, exactly, but you can't say they told the whole truth, either.
Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia delivered the Republicans' keynote address Wednesday night, and he spent a good portion of it railing against Kerry for voting against the "very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the war on terror." What Miller didn't say: Many Republicans voted against those same weapons systems.
"America needs to know the facts," Miller said, but he failed to mention a few of them. Miller told the delegates that Kerry voted against production of the F-14 and F-15 fighters and the Apache helicopter, but he didn't say that Dick Cheney, as defense secretary, proposed eliminating both of them, too. Miller criticized Kerry for voting against the B-2 bomber, but he didn't say that President George H.W. Bush also proposed an end to the B-2 bomber program. In his 1992 State of the Union Address, Bush said he supported such cuts "with confidence" based on the recommendations of his Secretary of Defense: Dick Cheney. With the Cold War over, Bush said, failing to cut defense spending would be "insensible to progress."
Mind Your E-mail Manners
Today's Daypass is
brought to you by Powells
Home delivery of The New York Times now 50% off.
Home delivery of The New York Times now 50% off.
That's not how Miller described the cuts Wednesday night. He said Kerry's record on defense spending suggests that he wants to arm U.S. troops with "spitballs." Miller, who was introduced as the "conscience of the Democratic Party," didn't see fit to mention that he and Kerry both voted in 2002 for the largest military spending increase in two decades -- a defense bill that Republican Senator John Warner said would "help to ensure that our military has the tools it needs to defend our nation."
Miller and the Bush campaign plainly know the truth about what he was saying -- the Annenberg Public Policy Center and any number of others have called the Republicans on their misleading argument about Kerry's votes on weapons systems. But adherence to the truth wasn't Miller's strong suit Wednesday night.
Miller said that Kerry has made it clear that he would never "use military force without U.N. approval," and that he would let "Paris decide when America needs defending." In fact, what Kerry said in his Boston convention speech was this: "I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security."
Miller's anti-Kerry rant wasn't the only convention speech in which Republicans misrepresented Kerry's statements or his Senate record. In his somniferous speech Wednesday night, Cheney mocked Kerry for saying that the United States should fight a "more sensitive war on terror, as though al-Qaida will be impressed by our softer side." But Kerry has not suggested a show of sensitivity toward al-Qaida; he said that America should fight a "more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."
With delegates shouting "flip-flop, flip-flop," Cheney blasted Kerry for supporting the "No Child Left Behind" legislation and then opposing it. In fact, Kerry supports No Child Left Behind but argues that the Bush administration has failed to provide promised funding for it. He mocked Kerry for voting for and then against the $87 billion supplemental funding bill for Iraq, but he didn't explain that Kerry voted on two different proposals -- one that would have paid for the $87 billion by rolling back tax cuts for the rich, and one which simply added the $87 billion to the federal deficit.
Sill, Cheney stayed away from most of the whoppers he tells on the campaign trail. He didn't repeat the phony charge he made last month in Minnesota -- that Kerry has the most liberal lifetime voting record of any current Senator. But Cheney didn't have to work hard to misrepresent Kerry's positions and his record; other convention speakers carried that water for him.
Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey told delegates Wednesday evening that John Kerry "can't win by telling us the truth," but then she immediately fudged the facts herself. In a claim that has been refuted so often that even Cheney doesn't make it anymore, Healey told the delegates: "The truth is that John Kerry -- not Ted Kennedy -- is the most liberal Senator in the United States."
But that's not the truth, really. Earlier this year, the National Journal identified Kerry as the senator with the most liberal voting record in 2003 -- a year in which Kerry missed so many votes while campaigning that the National Journal didn't even apply two of its three measures of "liberalness" to him.
When the magazine looked at the more meaningful lifetime voting records of current sitting senators, Kerry wasn't the most liberal one -- and it wasn't even close. Ten other senators have lifetime liberal scores higher than Kerry's -- and, yes, Ted Kennedy is among them.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney continued the home-state slam Wednesday, claiming that Kerry had voted for "tax hikes 98 times." The Bush campaign made the same claim in a television ad released last week, and the Annenberg Public Policy Center has already shot it down.
The problem with the "98 times" claim is the Republicans' fuzzy math. While their campaign calculus is getting better -- in March, the President claimed that Kerry "voted over 350 times for higher taxes on the American people" -- the Republicans' calculation repeatedly miscounts and mischaracterizes Kerry's votes.
Annenberg explains that 43 of the 98 "tax increase" votes were actually votes on budget resolutions that did not, in and of themselves, raise taxes. Moreover, in several instances, the total of 98 includes multiple votes on the same piece of legislation: By the GOP's math, Kerry's support for President Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction package as it wound its way through Congress should count as 16 separate votes to raise taxes. Kerry gets dinged six times for a single 1996 budget resolution, seven times for a 1997 budget resolution, and six more times for supporting a proposal to raise the cigarette tax. That proposal was sponsored by Sen. John McCain -- a Republican.
Mind Your E-mail Manners
Today's Daypass is
brought to you by Powells
Home delivery of The New York Times now 50% off.
Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele also took Kerry to task for sharing views with Republicans. Steele criticized Kerry for proposing a $6 billion cut in intelligence funding "just a year after the first attack on the World Trade Center." What Steele didn't say: Three months before Kerry made his proposal, Rep. Porter Goss -- Bush's pick to be the new CIA chief -- proposed a much larger cut in intelligence funding. Neither Goss' proposal nor Kerry's passed. But as Annenberg has noted, a Republican proposal to cut $1 billion from the intelligence budget passed on a voice vote the same year.
While Republicans have aimed most of their truth-stretching at Kerry, they have also engaged in the occasional embellishment to bolster Bush's image as a resolute leader. On the convention's opening night, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani called Bush "a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts." On the second night, Schwarzenegger said that Bush is a "leader who doesn't flinch, doesn't waver, does not back down." While it's true that Bush has stuck stubbornly to some of his failed policies -- until this week, he couldn't bring himself to admit any mistakes in Iraq -- just as often he has crumbled when public opinion has turned against his views.
Bush initially opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, then changed his mind when it was clear the votes were against him. He opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission, then supported it. He opposed a congressional investigation into the intelligence failures that led to the war in Iraq, then supported it.
The president who was praised so often this week for his "unflinching" war on terror once said he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or alive", then said that he didn't really care about finding him. The president who never wavers used to say that America will win the war on terror; over the weekend, he said "I don't think we can ever win it"; over the last week, he's been explaining that he didn't really mean what he said when he said it.
The flip-flops don't fit the image Karl Rove has crafted for Bush, so the convention speakers have simply ignored them. In their place, they've told stories suggesting that Bush has shown "courage" by appearing in photo ops -- grabbing that megaphone at Ground Zero, eating turkey with the troops in Baghdad -- and by standing up to public opinion. Schwarzenegger said: "The President didn't go into Iraq because the polls told him it was popular. As a matter of fact, the polls said just the opposite."
But as a matter of fact, that's not a fact. In a CBS/New York Times poll released on March 6, 2003 -- 11 days before Bush gave his final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein -- 69 percent of the respondents said they approved of U.S. military action to remove Hussein from power. While the White House surely helped shape public opinion -- by misrepresenting intelligence, by incessantly linking Saddam Hussein and 9/11, by predicting that American soldiers would be "greeted as liberators" -- the president didn't buck public opinion when he went to war.
On Tuesday night, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist tried to make Bush look like a strong leader on domestic issues, saying that he would stand up to the trial lawyers who are driving up the costs of healthcare. Repeating a line used by Bush himself, Frist declared: "Let's be clear. You can no longer be both pro-patient and pro-trial lawyer." He said that Kerry has "made his choice" by choosing Edwards as his running mate. But Frist has made his choice, too: in the Republican Senate primary in Florida, Frist endorsed Mel Martinez, a millionaire trial lawyer.
No matter. Frist continued to press his charge, telling the story of a Ft. Lauderdale doctor who he said was forced to give up his medical liability insurance when the costs grew too high. Frist expressed concern that the hospital where the doctor works, Ft. Lauderdale's Broward General, might be forced to close its emergency room because of all those expensive lawsuits by rich trial lawyers. "That hospital has the only Level 1 Trauma Center in the region," Frist said. "What if it closes?" But Vicki Martin, a spokesperson for Broward General, told Salon Wednesday that she is unaware of any discussion about closing the hospital's trauma center. And Frist's claim that Broward General has "the only Level 1 Trauma Center in the region?" That's false, too. There are at least two others, and one of them, Hollywood's Memorial Regional Hospital, is less than 10 miles away.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2...ion/index1.html
|
|
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
I really could care less for this convention and its substance.
The aftermath/impact of it is what really matters.
I honestly see that with several weeks of swiftboat ads; Bush went in with momentum ahead of Kerry. With the convention...and afterwards, I see Bush pulling ahead if not closing the deal.
Fact of the matter is, We can all sit here and argue about the facts and such; BUT IT REALLY DOESNT MATTER because the average voter will not go and dig into the facts. They will listen to the speeches and ads and go from there. I will agree with Dem. about the swiftboat controversy being blown out of proportion and some particular events being falsified. Quite honestly it really doesnt matter though because these ads have already had a profound impact on many voters. We can all sit here and copy and paste information all day...but at the end of the day, the avg joe doesnt have time for this.
Quite simple, like it or not; the Republicans know how to put a convention together and they have done so. Even if the message is centered on one issue it will serve its purpose which is getting the vote out. National TV GOP advertisement.
Sadly for some, thats how politics is.
So live with it. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
***whispers to crowd***
(is it me, or is Occ slowly but surely moving toward the left? Anyone else notice this trend?):D |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
***whispers to crowd***
(is it me, or is Occ slowly but surely moving toward the left? Anyone else notice this trend?):D |
wow.....and Bush has been a moderate liberal:rolleyes:
what else is new |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
I really could care less for this convention and its substance.
The aftermath of it is what really matters.
I honestly see that with several weeks of swiftboat ads; Bush went in with momentum ahead of Kerry. With the convention...and afterwards, I see Bush pulling ahead if not closing the deal.
Fact of the matter is, We can all sit here and argue about the facts and such; BUT IT REALLY DOESNT MATTER because the average voter will not go and dig into the facts. They will listen to the speeches and ads and go from there. I will agree with Dem. about the swiftboat controversy being blown out of proportion and some particular events being falsified. Quite honestly it really doesnt matter though because these ads have already had a profound impact on many voters. We can all sit here and copy and paste information all day...but at the end of the day, the avg joe doesnt have time for this.
Quite simple, like it or not; the republicans know how to put a convention together and they have done so. Even if the message is centered on one issue it will serve its purpose which is getting the vote out. National TV GOP advertisement.
Sadly for some, thats how politics is.
So live with it. |
I agree. The Repubs. know how to play the politics game better. They can most certainly play dirty a lot easier and more decisively than the Dems., which often times sits back and merely hopes that reason and rationale eventually comes into the minds of the voters.
Sadly, this is and has never been the case. The Dems. have to realize that they have to simply strike back harder. Define or be defined. I swear if they ever realize this they'll likely control all 3 branches someday. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
wow.....and Bush has been a moderate liberal:rolleyes:
what else is new |
Now speed, you can be facetious all you want, but if you've read some of Occ's posts in this forum over the years you'd really think otherwise. Nearly everyone who's been a regular in this forum would agree that Occ's played the centrist pretty damn well, and have both supported and criticized both sides on various issues. Christ, he's schooled my ass on more than a few occasions, esp. economic issues (though I kinda wonder where he tends to sit on this now).
I won't attempt to speak for Occ, but as I've stated it seems clear that he's startin' to smell a more substantial pile of dung comin' from the Right than from the Left, at least for now. |
|
|
| xKaoSx |
It's pretty much the rep's intent to throw as much out there and confuse as much as possible so that in the end - people just have too much information and just dont care anymore and just vote for the incumbant.
I swear to god I wanted to bitch slap my tv just watching cheney's speech. He just talks and looks so damn smug and im so holier than thou bs attitude.
Have they even scheduled any debates yet? Does anyone think there is a chance at all they will even debate?
Im sure Bush's minions would love to avoid a debate at all costs.
Even if there is one it will be some watered down pre-question one so Bush can program his robot mind to spew forth answers like vommit. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
***whispers to crowd***
(is it me, or is Occ slowly but surely moving toward the left? Anyone else notice this trend?):D |
What can I say ... I'm ultimately a fiscal conservative and that is something that Bush is not. I'm a state's right advocate which is something Bush is not. And I'm for limited government which Bush obviously is not. Now Kerry can't really be described as any of those things either, but he's more of a deficit hawk than Bush is. And unlike behaviour that seems typical within either party, I don't give alleigance to a party (unless it's the libertarian party ... they never change their mind on anything :D) , I give alliegance to the policies that I believe in, and whichever candidate best aligns with those policies.
In retrospect, I've been arguing leftist conspiracy theories for the past 2 years or so. It just so happens that the blatantly misleading falsehoods and innaccuracies coming from the right in the run-up to the election is pissing me off. And until the republicans come up with a candidate who's a true republican, I'm most certainly not voting or arguing for the right any time soon.
Unless it's a conspiracy theory ... I can't stand them.
By the way, I agree with speedracer to the extent that many of the things being discussed in these conventions are really really stupid. I don't understand why everybody has to focus on the 70s. Repubs: He earned medals, he was a war hero move on ... Dems: He earned medals, he was a war hero, move on. Furthermore I don't understand why campaigns operate under 30 second soundbites to make a case for or against a candidate. Nothing is as simple as a 30 second explanation when it comes to GOVERNING a freaking country. There are reasons for EVERY vote, for EVERY policy decision, and if it was so simple as to be summarized in one commercial than Private Pile could probably run this country. There should ONLY be debates. Long debates where issues can be played out.
Bush should talk more about what he's doing, and what he's going to do to win the war on terror. Sit down and give a 30 minute explanation. Being tough or resolute is not a proper answer. Kerry should explain some of his accomplishments and demonstrate how he would be an effective leader. I can't beleive he doesn't even mention his role in the BCCI affair. For christ's sake, his role in that affair took down one of the largest criminal entities with terrorist links in the world!
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/01exec.htm
That's a freaking accomplishment worth touting in the present. Not a flashback to the 70s. But I suppose the public is too stupid to understand the complexity of acheivement in something as complicated as government and the plethora of sound bites and buzzword claims in 30 second tv advertisements will have to suffice :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
