speech bit

[Minionman]

Just saw Georse W. Bush speech, nothing in particular is unexpected, a bunch of points that just about everyone will in general agree with unless they have god information that makes them totally agree or disagree, plus some stuf about "winning the war on terror" and "defense of marriage". Since there weren't too many threads on other speeches, I don't know if people will be replying, but I figured I'd start a thread anyway.

On another note, this is the first political speech I've really paid attention to, and the crowd is FUNNY. You know exactly when they're going to cheer, laugh, boo, etc. I really liked the bit with "GeorgewBush.com", "yeeaaah". I probably should have seen the other ones to get a better idea of people's opinions.

[Sir_Die_alot]

The funny hats and predictable cheers and chants are pretty typical. These people are there to cheer on a cantidate, both parties do it.

What is more unusual this time around is the amount of hate one side has been whipped into. I don't even blame Kerry for it really. Many liberal groups want Bush voted out so bad they are going overboard, and if anything it's hurting Kerry. It's under reported but his campaign is getting desparate, exampled by the speech he gave a couple days ago. It's a "tradition" that when one party has their convention going, the other cantidate lays low. Even tonight I hear he is having a midnight rally. WTF!? :wacko:

[Chaerophon]

Huh? Did you hear that democrat who gave the keynote address at the the Republican convention? The Republicans have dealt twice as much venom as have the democrats. Desperation is when the incumbent party behaves for all the world as though they are the underdog and have to defend themselves.

[eppie]

These conventions are more like pop festivals, and have very little to do with politics.

A funny thing was that when that democratic senator (or was it Cheney, sorry but I forgot it). Was critizing Kerry because he voted against several things. So this guy was saying "against, against" a few times and the crowd thought it was a new slogan, so they started cheering "against' against" as well, not realizing it was this senator saying this about Kerry.
(and these are the same people that are also allowed to vote. (crying smiley)

[Occhidiangela]

The Republicans have dealt twice as much venom as have the democrats

What a load of rubbish. How do, or did, you measure that? How long have you even been paying attention? When do you start measuring? In the case of Pres Bush, the current, the venom spewing began before he was innaugurated, and it has sustained to this day. During the Democratic primaries, or don't you remember, the vitriol was, to put it bluntly, sickening.

The Republicans, to their eternal discredit, chose not to stay on the high ground. They got into the mud and pig wrestled. Pardon me while I vomit.

No one in either political party has shown me much of any class, and the "officially non-affiliated" supporters are just more ash and trash.
Low budget, low rent. To assert that there is some measurable difference in the mud slung by one side or the other slung is to show YOUR bias, Chaer, and how large your blinders are.

Stuff and nonsense, mon frere, tunnel vision does not become you.

Occhi

[Chaerophon]

I'm not 100% sure that I agree with you, but in this context, it doesn't really matter because I hadn't intended to make such a general comment. Goes to show what a few beers and a lack of care can get you! I had meant only to refer to the conventions, in which I think some of the rhetoric over the last two nights on the part of the Republicans and that one crazy Democrat went well over the top on several occasions. To my mind, none of the Democrats, not even Al Sharpton, sunk 'quite so far' in avoiding the issues and attacking the character. That being said, I didn't see absolutely everyone that spoke (although I did see quite a few), and yes, I definitely do have my own biases.

Low budget, low rent.

A good characterization of this whole 'convention' process if you ask me. I know it's the nature of the beast, but it's no kind of dialogue. Two large groups of televised sycophants, cheering like morons for speakers who are all saying essentially the same meaningless things that they always have, has left me with a rather hopeless feeling of disgust. I don't think that I'll bother any further with watching these phonies pander to the lowest common denominator. Why concern myself? The World Cup's on!

[Sir_Die_alot]

To my mind, none of the Democrats, not even Al Sharpton, sunk 'quite so far' in avoiding the issues and attacking the character.

Avoiding the issues? Attacking character? You ARE biased. Everything against Kerry was against his political record. I don't know how you feel about it, but I think someone's political record, especially on issues important during the election, is fair game. Or maybe you think Bush's actions the last 4 years are irrelevant and Kerry should stick to his own issues?

It's also interesting you should mention Al Sharption who has said Bush acted like a "gang leader", but Sharption is a tool and I don't think people who were educated beyond 4th grade give his words much weight. It's when people like Al Gore screams Bush "betrayed this country" that I lift an eyebrow. Yeah, who is questioning who's patriotism?

Where I give Bush kudos is for giving an outline on what he wants to do. Kerry has been a "Bush bad me good" candidate. He gives plenty of what he wants to do speeches and never includes how. Screw the how, vote for Kerry is how he expects to win I guess. :P To be fair he is more specific on his website, but he would be better off if people heard it from his lips.

Edit: This made me chuckle. I went back to my old post asking why people were all hot for this guy and found this link http://www.johnkerry.com/issues.htm. Funny how their website reshuffle can end up showing just what I think of the guy. :lol:

[kandrathe]

that one crazy Democrat

I loved Zell Miller's speech(transcript). As neither partial to elephants or donkeys I can relate to a politician that shoots from the hip and calls it like he sees it.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?  I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom
over tyranny.

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.  Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

I think he's touching on the issues, actually. Here some excerpts from Wednesday, March 24, 2004 Remarks by Georgia Senator Zell Miller at Democrats for Bush Rollout;

But after listening to Senator Kerry over the last year or two – after hearing the agenda he’s laid out for our country – I cannot support him in his race for the presidency. There are too many issues about which John Kerry and I disagree. And there are too few similarities between John Kerry and the great Democratic leaders I’ve known.

Senator Kerry doesn’t make any secret of the fact that he wants to bring more money into Washington so that he can decide how to spend it.  In his first one hundred days in office, John Kerry’s massive health care plan would force him to raise taxes by as much as $900 billion. And the only way he’s going to get that kind of money is if he reaches into the wallet of every man and woman in America.

For decades, the Democratic Party maintained peace through strength. We worked with Republicans to ensure that freedom and democracy would not falter in the face of any threat.  These days it seems like some people in my party are motivated more by partisan politics than by national interest.  John Kerry has the wrong idea about how our country should respond to the threat of terrorism. He says the war on terror should be mainly a law enforcement action.  Now I know that an army of lawyers can be scary sometimes, but it does not compare to the Army of the United States – not to mention the Marine Corps, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, and all of our reservists and National Guardsmen who are fighting under the flag of the United States of America.

Remember it was President John F. Kennedy who told the world: ‘We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.’   I think John Kerry made the right decision when he voted to authorize the war in Iraq. But then he went out on the campaign trail and started spending too much time with Howard Dean. And he came back to Washington and voted against the $87 billion the troops need for protective armor, combat pay, and better health care. That’s the worst kind of indecisiveness, and the wrong leadership at this critical moment in history.

I know it's the nature of the beast, but it's no kind of dialogue. Two large groups of televised sycophants, cheering like morons for speakers who are all saying essentially the same meaningless things that they always have, has left me with a rather hopeless feeling of disgust. I don't think that I'll bother any further with watching these phonies pander to the lowest common denominator.

These are pep rallies. That is their intent, to rally the repective parties to make the last big push to the finish line.

[Chaerophon]

Everything against Kerry was against his political record. I don't know how you feel about it, but I think someone's political record, especially on issues important during the election, is fair game. Or maybe you think Bush's actions the last 4 years are irrelevant and Kerry should stick to his own issues?

Simply repeating the mantra "he doesn't support the troops, he doesn't support the troops" is not 'dealing with the issues'. It's character assassination. If they wanted to get into the why of his actions, that would be dialogue. Simply dragging out base line rhetoric like that is setting the bar quite low.

It's when Al Gore screams Bush "betrayed this country" that I lift an eyebrow

Well, let's see, if he sent his country to war under false pretences, that would count as a betrayal, would it not?

Anyways, I'm going to drop it before it even starts. If you feel that the war was justified, then you will disagree with my perspective as you will see the anti-war sentiment of some prominent Democrats as "name dragging". For the most part, Occhi's right; it's a war of information, and there's not a whole lot of real meaning to it all anyways. Feel free to comment.

[Chaerophon]

I loved Zell Miller's speech(transcript). As neither partial to elephants or donkeys I can relate to a politician that shoots from the hip...

I hope that you realize just how clever that last bit was considering that last night, in an interview with Chris Matthews (whom I detest), he got all riled up and expressed his wish that he could challenge Matthews to a duel.... :)

[Sir_Die_alot]

Simply repeating the mantra "he doesn't support the troops, he doesn't support the troops" is not 'dealing with the issues'. It's character assassination. If they wanted to get into the why of his actions, that would be dialogue. Simply dragging out base line rhetoric like that is setting the bar quite low.

Now I really question if you watched it at all.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an
auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in
Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?
U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign
rhetoric.

-Zell Miller

John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision.

This is not a personal criticism of John Kerry.

I respect him for his service to our nation.

But it is important to see the contrast in approach between the two men;

President Bush, a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts, and John Kerry, whose record in elected office suggests a man who changes his position often even on important issues.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, John Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War. Later he said he actually supported the war.

Then in 2002, as he was calculating his run for President, he voted for the war in Iraq.

And then just 9 months later, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental budget to fund the war and support our troops.

-Rudy Giuliani

The President's opponent is an experienced senator.  He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it.  (Applause.)  But there is also a record of more than three decades since.  And on the question of America's role in the world, the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush are the sharpest, and the stakes for the country are the highest.  (Applause.)  History has shown that a strong and purposeful America is vital to preserving freedom and keeping us safe -- yet time and again, Senator Kerry has made the wrong call on national security.  Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed "only at the directive of the United Nations."

AUDIENCE:  Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  During the 1980s, Senator Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiatives that brought victory in the Cold War.

AUDIENCE:  Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And in 1991, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm.

AUDIENCE:  Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed.  He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror" -- (Laughter.) -- as though al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side.  (Laughter and applause.)

There is plenty more in the VP speech, in fact that's just about all it is. Dick Cheney compairing Bush and Kerry's records.

These changing times can be exciting times of expanded opportunity. And here, you face a choice. My opponent's policies are dramatically different from ours. Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts. After supporting my education reforms, he now wants to dilute them. He opposes legal and medical liability reform. He opposed reducing the marriage penalty, opposed doubling the child credit, and opposed lowering income taxes for all who pay them. To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for -- he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes -- and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.

-George W. Bush

Well, let's see, if he sent his country to war under false pretences, that would count as a betrayal, would it not?

During his vice presidancy Gore supported the information Bush used in his decision. If Bush is a traitor by this standard then so is Clinton and Gore.

[Chaerophon]

My point:

Simply repeating the mantra "he doesn't support the troops, he doesn't support the troops" is not 'dealing with the issues'. It's character assassination. If they wanted to get into the why of his actions, that would be dialogue. Simply dragging out base line rhetoric like that is setting the bar quite low.

1.) Supports my statement...

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an
auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40% of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in
Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: Against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel, Against the Aegis air-defense cruiser, Against the Strategic Defense Initiative, Against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?
U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

2.) Supports my point...

The President's opponent is an experienced senator.  He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it.  (Applause.)  But there is also a record of more than three decades since.  And on the question of America's role in the world, the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush are the sharpest, and the stakes for the country are the highest.  (Applause.)  History has shown that a strong and purposeful America is vital to preserving freedom and keeping us safe -- yet time and again, Senator Kerry has made the wrong call on national security.  Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed "only at the directive of the United Nations."

AUDIENCE:  Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  During the 1980s, Senator Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiatives that brought victory in the Cold War.

AUDIENCE:  Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And in 1991, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm.

AUDIENCE:  Booo!

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed.  He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror" -- (Laughter.) -- as though al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side.  (Laughter and applause.)

3.) Doesn't have much to do with my point, but is a moronic oversimplification... Granted, Kerry should be more clear on what he does, in fact, propose. However, it's clear that not supporting a particular incarnation of such reforms is not necessarily indicative of his own vision.

These changing times can be exciting times of expanded opportunity. And here, you face a choice. My opponent's policies are dramatically different from ours. Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts. After supporting my education reforms, he now wants to dilute them. He opposes legal and medical liability reform. He opposed reducing the marriage penalty, opposed doubling the child credit, and opposed lowering income taxes for all who pay them. To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for -- he's proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that's a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes -- and that's the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.

The fact of the matter is not that Kerry doesn't support the troops or the military - he merely believes that the money could be better used than to pump it into a machine that already spends more than nearly all of the world's militaries combined. Theirs is a misdirected rhetoric. If they wanted to deal with the issues, then they would talk about why his more liberal vision for the country is wrong and why their own perspectives are right, not veil the issues with this one-dimensional rhetoric of military patriotism.

[Sir_Die_alot]

There can be no dialog because Kerry denies being anti-millitary! You said they are "Simply repeating the mantra "he doesn't support the troops, he doesn't support the troops", so no those prove they have gone into detail. Kerry has yet to defend that record and instead focuses on Vietnam, the environment, and social health care.

3.) Doesn't have much to do with my point, but is a moronic oversimplification... Granted, Kerry should be more clear on what he does, in fact, propose. However, it's clear that not supporting a particular incarnation of such reforms is not necessarily indicative of his own vision.

Summary of your statement: Bush is a moron, but Kerry is even dumber.

The fact of the matter is not that Kerry doesn't support the troops or the military - he merely believes that the money could be better used than to pump it into a machine that already spends more than nearly all of the world's militaries combined.

Yeah that's been tried before. You think we should try a third time for World War 3? And your "all of the world's militaries combined" is cute but doesn't take into account the % of GDP in which it's just average. We just have more money to actually spend.

Theirs is a misdirected rhetoric. If they wanted to deal with the issues, then they would talk about why his more liberal vision for the country is wrong and why their own perspectives are right, not veil the issues with this one-dimensional rhetoric of military patriotism.

Or they could point out obvious flaws in his record and force him to account for or pay for it politically. So far he has chosen the second option.

[Ajax]

For one thing, I agree with the majority of Chaerophon's post. Politics = Dirty, but that's reinventing the wheel. The Republicans are doing what (the believe) will win them an election, that's why they "got down in the mud."

Your portrayal of the military as an inefficient money hog probably should be reconsidered, however. I side with Sir_Die_alot.

Yeah that's been tried before. You think we should try a third time for World War 3? And your "all of the world's militaries combined" is cute but doesn't take into account the % of GDP in which it's just average. We just have more money to actually spend.

Agreed. For one thing, our role in the world means we need to spend all that money on defense. Who supplied the majority of the troops for Bosnia? How about Desert Storm? There are countries out there which depend almost entirely on the US to ensure world stability, allowing them to focus almost exclusively on economic prosperity or development. Japan for example.

And if you think our military spending is too large of a burden to bear, look at China. They have a much lower standard of living, and yet send almost twice the American % GDP on their military. But North Korea takes first prize in absurdity. Sure, your people can eat grass. But you've got tanks and nukes so everybody will respect you!

Which reminds me, I have to brush up on my rifle skills.

[Minionman]

And if you think our military spending is too large of a burden to bear, look at China. They have a much lower standard of living, and yet send almost twice the American % GDP on their military. But North Korea takes first prize in absurdity. Sure, your people can eat grass. But you've got tanks and nukes so everybody will respect you!

Whether you were being sarcastic or not, this quote is basically what I was thinking. For Sir Die alot, I suggest you calm yourself down, and think about whether you really want to take money out of the economy that probably goes to economic growth and throw it in the military. I suggest you calm down because when the wars in Iraq and the middle east in general end, the U.S. will still have economic competetion with other countries, and that takes money too, but you seem afraid of something right now so much that you want to go all military. If the U.S. military is stronger by far than all the other world's militaries with an average percent GDP, that all we need, the rest should go to econimic growth.

The military can only do so much against terrorists, and terrorists are far from being the only issue in the U.S., so overspending on the military will simply waste money.

[Sir_Die_alot]

For Sir Die alot, I suggest you calm yourself down, and think about whether you really want to take money out of the economy that probably goes to economic growth and throw it in the military. I suggest you calm down because when the wars in Iraq and the middle east in general end, the U.S. will still have economic competetion with other countries, and that takes money too, but you seem afraid of something right now so much that you want to go all military. If the U.S. military is stronger by far than all the other world's militaries with an average percent GDP, that all we need, the rest should go to econimic growth.

I am calm. B)

Keep in mind what is going on with the military, thousands and thousands are over seas in combat, 130,000 in Iraq alone last I heard. Reguardless how you feel about the decision, once deployed, we should support our troops. That doesn't mean we just don't spit on them and call them "baby killers", that also means supporting them finantially.

Probably Kerry's biggest mistake in the time he has been after the presidancy was his flip-flop of voting to send troops into Iraq, and then voting against their funding. He can say he supports the troops all he wants, the fact is he did not. In the end I think that more than anything else is going to cost him.

[Ajax]

I was being sarcastic about North Korea's absurdity. Military strength should take the backseat to simple, fundamental needs.

But your point is, American "fundamental needs" involve driving a BMW rather than a Ford to work; and the military should take a backseat to this need. Sorry, no dice here.

The point I was trying to make with my sarcasm, is that America doesn't spend all that much on its military, expecially given the "global policeman" role the military is expected to fulfill. My examples of China and North Korea illustrate how little we spend on our direct military strength, relative to other nations.

[Chaerophon]

If you really want China and North Korea to serve as your frames of reference, then fair enough...

Secondly, let's not pretend that the US is some kind of global martyr for freedom. When they move in, it is in their interest, plain and simple. When it is not in their interest, they tend not to move in.

But your point is, American "fundamental needs" involve driving a BMW rather than a Ford to work; and the military should take a backseat to this need. Sorry, no dice here.

This has nothing to do with social spending.

[kandrathe]

When they move in, it is in their interest, plain and simple. When it is not in their interest, they tend not to move in.

I don't think it's that simple. Why did we go to help stabilize Liberia, Somolia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Macedonia? The US is always heavily involved in any UN action as well. Why? Because we got the stuff they need.

Take the problem in Sudan. The African Union can supply the troops to help stabilize and provide security, they just have no way of getting them there and supplying them once they are in place. They need the US to provide logistical support. The EU has 380 million people, with about 82% of the US GDP.

There is no reason that a unified Europe couldn't shoulder more of the burden, except for the fact that they do not invest as much in a strong defense. Rather, they put more money into their social welfare systems and rely on the US to provide the muscle, then bitch about us being the big bad bully in the world.

[Jester]

"There can be no dialog because Kerry denies being anti-millitary!"

Oh, yeah? Well, you're a noonyhead! And we can't debate about it so long as you deny it!

Jester