The Republican Convention

[Classic Rocker]

Political parites have been blown way out of proportion. It does nothing but divide the country. It has some benfits, but the whole Republican vs Democrat thing has gone far enough. None of these candiates are talking about bringing major changes. They just want there moment of the limelight. I want results. I want action to be taken. I don't care about policy. Lets just do what we need to do to ensure our nation succeeds.

Just my rant.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Classic Rocker

Political parites have been blown way out of proportion. It does nothing but divide the country. It has some benfits, but the whole Republican vs Democrat thing has gone far enough. None of these candiates are talking about bringing major changes. They just want there moment of the limelight. I want results. I want action to be taken. I don't care about policy. Lets just do what we need to do to ensure our nation succeeds.

Just my rant.

Unfortunately, a very small amount of politicians think that way. Remember... politics is just a game.

[Jonbo298]

Your right about parties not focusing on the intended things. I hate hearing both parties complain about X person's military history. Who really gives a ****? I don't care about a candidates military history, I care about what he wants to do for the country and his issues/ideas that WILL matter to me. I don't care if Bush supposedly dodged the military or that Kerry suposedly wasn't in Vietnam. Do any of those things matter to whats happening today or in the future? no

[Typhoid]

Its a penis waving competition.

Its all one upsmanship, thats all they are doing.

They arnt adressing issues, but they are tarnishing eachothers reputation to heighten themselves.

They get to issues time and time again, but then it deterriorates into John Kerry's Purple hearts, or Bush not going to Vietnam.

I would have respect for whoever just rom this point on dopesnt tarnish the reputation of the other candidate. That would get my vote.

But I think the Republicans are getting too harsh on Kerry. Way too harsh. Politics shouldnt be about who did what and when, it should be about whos doing what and how.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

But I think the Republicans are getting too harsh on Kerry. Way too harsh. Politics shouldnt be about who did what and when, it should be about whos doing what and how.

I think thats a double standard. The Democrats have been just as harsh against Bush, except during their convention, and have received no criticism for it. When the Republicans do the same thing, they are reamed a new a-hole for it. Its the same thing with the 527 advertisement issue.

And it should be about BOTH who did what when and what how. What a politician did in the past is the ONLY device you can use to measure what he will do in the future. Based on that evidence, Kerry has little credibility on the anti-terrorism stances he has claimed now and it is a VERY valid argument to bring up in a campaign or debate.

As for your points about Zell Miller, he believes he isn;t wishy washy at all, but that the Democratic party has abandoned HIM, and if you look at modern political history he has a point. If you look at the platform that JFK ran on, he appears much more of a moderate Republican by today's standards than a Democrat.

[Typhoid]

more of a moderate Republican by today's standards than a Democrat

Then why is Zell Miller not a registered Republican?

What a politician did in the past is the ONLY device you can use to measure what he will do in the future

How so?

Kerry went to war...so that means what? How can you tell what he did in the past as reference to the future?

Bush didnt go to Vietnam, so how can you judge how he will act by what he did and didnt do?

People change, they grow up and get more mature and get different views on things.

he believes he isn;t wishy washy at all

Nor does Kerry, yet hes pegged as a flip-flopper. Imagine that.

The Democrats have been just as harsh against Bush, except during their convention, and have received no criticism for it

All right then. Name all the slander campaigns that the democrats have put against Bush.

I havent seen one commercial about things saying how Bush didnt go to Vietnam, but i did see the one aimed at Kerry.

I dont see democrats constantly slandering Bush's war record, and things like that, as the republicans do to Kerry.

And good on the Democrats for not using the chance to publicly slander the Republicans during the DNC.

Did you ever stop to think that the Republicans get so much heat for saying **** about Kerry, because they did it during the RNC.

Arnt the conventions supposed to be about your issues, your points, what would make the country better if you were in office?

I never knew it was about slander, lies, deciet, propoganda and name calling.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Then why is Zell Miller not a registered Republican?

He refuses as he is still domestically pretty liberal and he does not feel he is doing his party a service by abandoning it to the far left. Its his goal to try and bring it back to the Democratic Party of old.

How so?

Kerry went to war...so that means what? How can you tell what he did in the past as reference to the future?

Bush didnt go to Vietnam, so how can you judge how he will act by what he did and didnt do?

People change, they grow up and get more mature and get different views on things.

I was referring to Kerry's voting record, not his war service, which I respect. You judge a politician by what he does, not by what he says he will do. And I will remind you of a direct quote from Senator Kerry.

"I voted for the war, until I voted against it."

All right then. Name all the slander campaigns that the democrats have put against Bush.

I havent seen one commercial about things saying how Bush didnt go to Vietnam, but i did see the one aimed at Kerry

I dont see democrats constantly slandering Bush's war record, and things like that, as the republicans do to Kerry.

That was not by the Republican party, but by a 527 called the Swift Boat Veteran's For Truth (who have come out in support of democrats in the past, by the way). Much like the Democratic party has 527's such as MoveOn.org that are "not associated" with the party, yet accused President Bush of poisoning pregnant women at one point.

If you are going to associate Swift Boat with the Republican Party, you have to associate MoveOn.org with the democrats.

Also, I don't believe anyone slandered Kerry's war record at the Republican convention once. In fact, I believe most of the speakers spoke very highly of his record.

And good on the Democrats for not using the chance to publicly slander the Republicans during the DNC.

Nor did the Republicans. The Republicans went after Kerry's VOTING RECORD, not war record, which is a completely valid campaign issue which most people were probably not aware of.

Did you ever stop to think that the Republicans get so much heat for saying **** about Kerry, because they did it during the RNC.

Did you ever think they got so much **** because of the liberal media defending their poster boy and reaching fro straws when all of the inconsistencies in Kerry's voting record were exposed? Its better to change the subject than actually discuss the issues that were brought up.

Arnt the conventions supposed to be about your issues, your points, what would make the country better if you were in office?

Voting record IS AN ISSUE, and is one of the biggest differences between Bush and Kerry. You might not like Bush, but at least you know what he stands for and what his plans are for the country. Kerry, on the other hand, has changed his stance on the war 3 times during his campaign alone.

I never knew it was about slander, lies, deciet, propoganda and name calling.

You call it slander, I call it pointing out the truth, which of course means that ITS NOT SLANDER, LIES OR DECEIT. Propoganda? Well, thats debatable depending on your definition.

Just because you don't like what was said, doesn't mean that its not true or a valid issue in the campaign for the Presidency.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

I think thats a double standard. The Democrats have been just as harsh against Bush, except during their convention, and have received no criticism for it. When the Republicans do the same thing, they are reamed a new a-hole for it. Its the same thing with the 527 advertisement issue.

And it should be about BOTH who did what when and what how. What a politician did in the past is the ONLY device you can use to measure what he will do in the future. Based on that evidence, Kerry has little credibility on the anti-terrorism stances he has claimed now and it is a VERY valid argument to bring up in a campaign or debate.

As for your points about Zell Miller, he believes he isn;t wishy washy at all, but that the Democratic party has abandoned HIM, and if you look at modern political history he has a point. If you look at the platform that JFK ran on, he appears much more of a moderate Republican by today's standards than a Democrat.

I've never noticed a double standard, but it always seemed as if the republican party did a lot more fingerpointing than the democratic party. A very good example is the Clinton affair, it was blown way out of proportion, some may argue that theres no proof that it was directly from the Republicans though, but as soon as the 9/11 disaster hit, when all planes were grounded, Bush, with the US Governments money sent I think about 96 Bin Laden family members home on jets. I think that if the situations were turned, the Republicans would have made sure this was public.....just my two cents.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by GiMpY-wAnNaBe

I've never noticed a double standard, but it always seemed as if the republican party did a lot more fingerpointing than the democratic party.

I should have been more specific. I was referring to the 527 situation and how the Republican party is being held responsible for the Swift Boat ads, while the democratic party is rarely ever associated with organixzations like MoveOn and The Media Fund, which have accrued nearly 10 times the camapaign funds of the Republican Party.

[Dylflon]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

And it should be about BOTH who did what when and what how. What a politician did in the past is the ONLY device you can use to measure what he will do in the future.

I remember that in the past George Bush promised the capture of Osama Bin Laden. I remember that out of the blue he forgot all about Osama and sent his nation's army to occupy Iraq. I remember that when no WMDs were found he changed what he said the mission was about, "freeing the Iraqi people". I remember that because of his administration the highest amount of jobs had been lost since the great depression.

Are these past actions any indication as to what George W. Bush may do in the future if he's re-elected?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

I remember that in the past George Bush promised the capture of Osama Bin Laden. I remember that out of the blue he forgot all about Osama and sent his nation's army to occupy Iraq.

If you think Bush "forgot" about Osama Bin Laden you obviously don't absorb more than the TV tells you. We still have troops in Afghanistan, are currently still working with Pakistan to find him. Do we have our full forces in Afghanistan? No, as it does not take an army to bring in one man. That would be a complete waste of resources that would be better used forming a democracy in a country and region thats known only death and oppression for the last 30 years. A democracy that could change the entire middle east over the next 20-50 years and would do more to end terrorist than any special ops group or smart bomb could ever do.

I remember that when no WMDs were found he changed what he said the mission was about, "freeing the Iraqi people".

I also remember both Britain and Russia admitting to giving the US bad intelligence information. I also remember Bill Clinton evicerating the CIA during his tenure which led to our dependence on foreign forms of intelligence. I also remember the evidence found after the occupation of Iraq that Saddam had ordered a nuclear missile delivery system from North Korea. I also remember that Iraq had thousands of pounds of chemical and biological weaponry in 1998 (found by the UN), which led to the whole UN inspection debacle, and which also magically "disappeared" with no evidence of destruction. I also remember Iraq completely refusing to cooperate with the UN inspectors and openly defying the world into believing he still had them, which the whole world, including the previous administration, thought he still did. I also remember that Iraq was the only country to have used chemical weapons since the vietnam war. I also remember Iraq attacking two separate nations (Iran and Kuwait) in the span of ten years with no provocation. I also remember Iraq under Saddam attempting to develop their own nuclear missile system in the early eighties but it was destroyed by the Isreali's.

And by the way, the Bush administration has never said that they don't believe that there were never WMD in Iraq during the time in which the inpections were being stopped by Saddam. Did they change PR strategies? Yes, because too many news organizations would rather look past the obvious to find the sensational story, but the administration has never said they don't believe that Saddam did not have them.

I remember that because of his administration the highest amount of jobs had been lost since the great depression.

I also remember the tech bubble that the Clinton administration sat by and watched burst in Bush's face. I also remember a little event called "the worst terrorist attack in world history" that happened on our shores that led to the job rates falling horribly over the next 6 months. I also remember that the US has one of the best employment rates IN THE WORLD and at its current level is the same during 1996 when our oh so popular president Bill Clinton was re-elected.

See? I can remember stuff too...

[dropCGCF]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Its a penis waving competition.

That's the worst and most true thing i've ever heard.