Republican National Convention

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Soledad
Amazing. When I post articles you tell me to think for myself. When I don't you tell me I'm a liar. You asked me for my opinion, not a dissertation.



An AIDS program that helps refugees in Africa and Asia gets its funding cut because one of the seven groups involved once worked with the United Nations, which once worked with the Chinese government, which once supported forced abortions.




It's funny that someone so intent on using metaphors and verbal tricks could misread my statement so thoroughly. I used ammunition in the metaphorical sense. His incompetence and his policies have INCREASED terrorism.



HUH? I find that message repellent, but I would have no hesitation in fighting for his right to say it. Regardless of how sickening I find it. That's called freedom of speech.



Why would you think I'm okay with it? There's protest and then there's violent protest that becomes vandalization. What's you're point? You think I condone people breaking your property? I don't condone it but I will not live in a country that out of fear of vandalism abolishes the freedom of speech and freedom to peaceful assembly.




And it certainly ain't the politicians with the insurance companies filling their wallets making things cheap!

---

I think I'll apologize for calling you a liar.....

If you can prove I said it..

15 billion in AIDS money over 5 years is way too little to be spending.....let's bump it up to 30 and watch the tears flow.....someone will bitch that we are spending too much....


Metaphorical ammo kills metaphorical people....I told you I'd talk straight and now you come across with the bells and whistles, and you still can't come up with two articles...,.


An opinion without a firm foundation is just.......an opinion..


HUH? did I stutter?? IF you support free speech hold up the sign.
I mean you find the message repugnant but you refuse to stand by the gay basher and his freedom of speech..

Sometimes you have to sacrifice your core beliefs to make sure the message gets out. That may be a stretch for people who believe in the freedom to say something, but aren't willing to put their biases aside.........

I admire people who are willing to take that chance...
And I do admire the demonstrators.....anyone with time to go to New York and get punked by the cops rates a big number one in my book.....I wish I could tell my boss I'm going to New York to get arrested! Yippee!!

We once worked with the chinese government who ok'ed abortions.....

We once worked with the Iraq government and they killed the Kurds....we waltzed into Iraq and kicked Saddam's heiney into the dirt and everyone's pissed off about that.....same difference. should we go anywhere and kick some tushie, everyone will be upset and protesting and eff the government!!!!


Again, I asked you to show your work and you give me a snippet of china and abortions..........Isn't the Dem response to take care of the homefront???

So why worry about china and abortions???.....hands off...... that's THEIR business and their culture. Why should we be pushing american values on them. What did they do to derserve that????

It's the same arguement you have about Iraq......
--------------------------------------------------------------

Why would you think I'm okay with it? There's protest and then there's violent protest that becomes vandalization. What's you're point? You think I condone people breaking your property? I don't condone it but I will not live in a country that out of fear of vandalism abolishes the freedom of speech and freedom to peaceful assembly.
---------------------------------------------------------------

fear of vandalism abolishes the freedom of speech.....

My point?
You made it for me......YOU don't agree with some hijinks but some vandalism is OK as long as it does not interfere with FOS...

I don't give a rat's arse about demostrations, take out a permit,
pay insurance and have some responsible people in charge and ready to pony up with the costs of the police, fire and clean up personnel....

Or is it too much to ask for people acting like animals, shouting slogans, littering and generally being a nusiance to be a little more responsible for their activities???

My point is about being responsible in what you do, say and how you act....I laugh when I hear the candidates and their cronies cry about the 527 campaigns and the slurs that people shoot back and forth....

I looked for the line where I called you a liar.....

Can you find it for me so I can apologize?

Well, here we are post DNC and post RNC. The neo-conservatives will still vote for Bush, the traditional republicans will vote for the republican candidate, the democrats will vote for the democrat. And millions of dollars have been blown.

People are still dying in Iraq. Afganistan is still a mess. And no one's mind has been changed. People are voting for the same guy they were voting for before the conventions.

The irony is, the candidates are virtually identical on the issues that typically face a president. We are voting on their beliefs, on our beliefs, and along party lines, not on the issues.

I can't wait til February.:(

Well said Gryphon, I believe you are right :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by the gryphon
People are voting for the same guy they were voting for before the conventions.

---

Pat Paulsen is back from the dead??? :confused:

Not a bastian of liberal news, the Washington Post has this to say about the bile and invective that was spewed this week:

GOP Prism Distorts Some Kerry Positions

By Glenn Kessler and Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 3, 2004; Page A01


Speakers at this week's Republican convention have relentlessly attacked John F. Kerry for statements he has made and votes he has taken in his long political career, but a number of their specific claims -- such as his votes on military programs -- are at best selective and in many cases stripped of their context, according to a review of the documentation provided by the Bush campaign.

As a senator, Kerry has long been skeptical of big-ticket weapons systems, especially when measured against rising budget deficits, and to some extent he opened himself to this line of attack when he chose to largely skip over his Senate career during his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention last month. But the barrage by Republicans at their own convention has often misportrayed statements or votes that are years, if not decades, old.

For instance:

• Kerry did not cast a series of votes against individual weapons systems, as Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) suggested in a slashing convention speech in New York late Wednesday, but instead Kerry voted against a Pentagon spending package in 1990 as part of deliberations over restructuring and downsizing the military in the post-Cold War era.

• Both Vice President Cheney and Miller have said that Kerry would like to see U.S. troops deployed only at the direction of the United Nations, with Cheney noting that the remark had been made at the start of Kerry's political career. This refers to a statement made nearly 35 years ago, when Kerry gave an interview to the Harvard Crimson, 10 months after he had returned from the Vietnam War angry and disillusioned by his experiences there. (President Bush at the time was in the Air National Guard, about to earn his wings.)

• President Bush, Cheney and Miller faulted Kerry for voting against body armor for troops in Iraq. But much of the funding for body armor was added to the bill by House Democrats, not the administration, and Kerry's vote against the entire bill was rooted in a dispute with the administration over how to pay for $20 billion earmarked for reconstruction of Iraq.

In remarks prepared for delivery last night, Kerry denounced the Republican convention for its "anger and distortion" and criticized Cheney for avoiding the military draft during the Vietnam era.

Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt defended the statements made by convention speakers, though he declined to address details beyond supplying the campaign's citations of votes. "Whether it was in the '70s, '80s or '90s, Sen. Kerry has demonstrated a general pattern of hostility to a strong national defense," Holt said.

Votes cast by lawmakers are often twisted by political opponents, and both political parties are adept at combing through legislative records to score political points. Former senator Robert J. Dole's voting record was frequently distorted by the Clinton campaign eight years ago -- as well as by his GOP rivals for the Republican nomination.

One document frequently cited by Republicans is a 350-word article in the Boston Globe, written when Kerry was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts and battling to win the Democratic nomination for senator in 1984 -- a period of soaring deficits in the wake of a huge defense buildup by President Ronald Reagan. Calling for a "strong defense," the article said, Kerry proposed to slow the rate of growth in defense spending by canceling 27 weapons systems, in part to reduce the deficit and also restore cuts Reagan had made in domestic programs.

While Cheney said Kerry opposed Reagan's "major defense initiatives," the campaign does not cite any votes against such defense programs while Reagan was president, relying instead on a campaign speech before he was elected senator.

Six years later, Kerry took part in a complex and serious debate in Congress over how to restructure the military after the Cold War.

Cheney, at the time defense secretary, had scolded Congress for keeping alive such programs as the F-14 and F-16 jet fighters that he wanted to eliminate. Miller said in his speech that Kerry had foolishly opposed both the weapons systems and would have left the military armed with "spitballs." During that same debate, President George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, proposed shutting down production of the B-2 bomber -- another weapons system cited by Miller -- and pledged to cut defense spending by 30 percent in eight years.

Though Miller recited a long list of weapons systems, Kerry did not vote against these specific weapons on the floor of the Senate during this period. Instead, he voted against an omnibus defense spending bill that would have funded all these programs; it is this vote that forms the crux of the GOP case that he "opposed" these programs.

On the Senate floor, Kerry cast his vote in terms of fiscal concerns, saying the defense bill did not "represent sound budgetary policy" in a time of "extreme budget austerity." Much like Bush's father, he singled out the B-2 bomber for specific attention, saying it is "one of the most costly, waste-ridden programs in a long history of waste, fraud and abuse scandals that have plagued Pentagon spending."

Asked why the campaign was attacking Kerry for having similar positions as Cheney, White House communications director Dan Bartlett responded: "I don't have the specifics of [when] then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney was in charge of the Pentagon, but I think we'd be more than willing to have a debate on whether Dick Cheney or John Kerry was stronger on defense."

Appearing on CNN, Miller said he had "gotten documentation on every single one of those votes that I talked about."

Cheney, in his own speech, skipped over that period, going directly from Kerry's vote against authorization for the first Persian Gulf War to the post-Sept. 11, 2001, period.

Republican documents also cite a long list of Kerry votes against various weapons systems, including the B-2 bomber. But Kerry's opposition in the 1990s often hinged on his concerns about the impact on the budget deficit of congressional efforts to add money for the plane.

"We are going to build B-2 bombers even though the Pentagon does not want the B-2 bombers, even though the Pentagon never submitted a request for the B-2 bombers," Kerry said during a budget debate in October 1995.

Kerry's vote last year against the administration's $87 billion proposal to fund troops in Iraq and pay for Iraqi reconstruction has also been the focus of Republican attacks. "My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor," Bush said last night.

Kerry actually supported all those things, but as part of a different version of the bill opposed by the administration. At the time, many Republicans were uncomfortable with the administration's plans and the White House had to threaten a veto against the congressional version to bring reluctant lawmakers in line.

In a floor statement explaining his vote, Kerry said he favored the $67 billion for the troops on the ground -- "I support our troops in Iraq and their mission" -- but faulted the administration's $20 billion request for reconstruction. He complained that administration "has only given us a set of goals and vague timetables, not a detailed plan."

Yesterday, the State Department said that only $1 billion of that money has been spent in the 11 months since the bill was passed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Soledad
Not a bastian of liberal news, the Washington Post has this to say about the bile and invective that was spewed this week:

GOP Prism Distorts Some Kerry Positions

---

What happened to China?

Metaphorical ammo and metaphorical deaths???

And what happened to the right to hold up the gay bashing sign???

I guess calling "liar" across the aisle is 'de riguer' for our political process..


Did Kerry ever figure out WHO'S medal/ribbons he was tossing around in the capitol???

And to make this even let's put GWB into an F-104 and see if he remembers how to crank one up.....that way we'll know if he was paying attention in the Tex NG.

Seeing JFK...No, not that JFK.....on the sailboard the other day tells me that if he can handle one of those, he MUST have been able to handle a 'swift boat'..

It must be a slow news day if you are quoting WP articles.

Would you consider apologizing to me for accusing me of calling you a 'liar'?

Just kidding.

I'm not interested in playing with you right now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Soledad
I'm not interested in playing with you right now.

---

Who said I am playing?


In that case,

I expect an apology.

Thanks.

are we done talking about the convention now?:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by joycenalex
are we done talking about the convention now?:cool:

---

I guess.....

:confused: