Democratic Convention

[Kane]

Did you see the Democratic Convention? How do you think it went? Are you convinced that Kerry will be a better president than Bush? Do you think Edwards will be a better vice president? Did you think Kerry and Edwards made a good convincing speech?

I thought it went okay. I’ve seen better democratic conventions, but it was okay. Still, Kerry hasn’t convinced me he will do any better or even the same as Bush. Besides his policy for Stem Cell Research, I still support Bush.

One thing that was quite annoying is when Kerry kept saying “Help is on the way!” What a copycat. That quote was started by Bush. It shows what a thief he can be :wink1:.

 

[michaeledward]

By all measures, the convention was a success. I have some problems with the Boston Police Departments 'BEAR', but that had little to do with the convention. I understand there were only two protesters arrested durning the convention (maybe only 1).

The convention was not necessary for me to be sure that Kerry is more qualified than Bush to be President, and will do a better job. Kerry's experience as a Prosecutor and in the Senate give him vastly more knowledge about the world than Bush had or has. And, as Jib-Jab pointed out, Kerry has 3 purple hearts.

I am curious about the quote ... can you get me information where Bush used this phrase? I took a quick look, and couldn't seem to find it.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Actually, I'd thought the quote was, "Hope is on the way," which among other things referred back to Clinton's 1992 campaign autobiography film, "The Man From Hope," which referred back to his home town.

Ya know, "Kane," I get a little tired of these silly accusations, such as, "what a thief he can be." In the first place, it's absurd to complain that a politician borrows--or refers--to another successful politician. That's what they do: they trade in images and ideas, and often these images and ideas are lifted from previous images and ideas.

Odd that you'd object to Kerry's doing this, but have no problem with the President's doing exactly the same thing, or with Reagan's doing it previously.

Or maybe it's not so odd. The big accusation--and the big lie--against Democrats always seems to be moral, these days, and usually it's based on this sort of flimsy evidence. Or, as with Clinton, it's based on digging into things that are, strictly speaking, none of anybody else's damn business.

Believe me, these accusations about sex and character aren't hurled for moral reasons. They're thrown around to win elections, and to cover up the sorts of weird crap that Republicans get up to from time to time. For example, there's that Jack Ryan character, who had to drop out after he got caught a) trumpeting his morality at after opportunity; b) dragging his wife to sex clubs. There was Henry Hyde, who drove his girlfriend to the clinic for an abortion (yes, he was married at the time), and campaigns against Choice every chance he gets.

Beyond the wish to win no matter what--which has always been part of American politics!--there's prurient interest. People were encouraged to Read All About Clinton and Monica! Get All the Details!! because they got off on it. They got off sexually, and they got off through feeling morally superior.

Me, I tend to think that dragging the country into an unnecessary war based on flimsy and/or faked evidence is a little more serious than a pompous campaign phrase or three. I tend to think that having your VP (shades of Spiro Agnew...remember him? he got canned because he was taking envelopes stuffed with cash from developers, sitting in the VP's chair, in his office...) entangled with companies like Halliburton, which somehow mysteriously get a no-bid contract (no-bid contracts are illegal, incidentally) worth billions is a little more serious than your wife's money. I even tend to think that taking big chunks of campaign money and support from a company--Enron; heard of 'em?--that subsequently goes bankrupt from lying about revenue and debts, screws tens of thousands of employees out of their stocks and retirement benefits, and gets caught manipulating prices illegally, is somewhat more morally serious than, say, being a personal injury lawyer.

And let's not even start up with the morality of trumpeting about going to war, after a personal history of getting your daddy's buddies to find you a soft spot in the ANG, and a repeated set of attacks on guys like Gore and Kerrey, who whatever their other flaws actually WENT to frickin' Vietnam and served.

Oh yeah, and if we want to get into the whole plagiarism issue--I notice nobody's discussing Doris Kearns Goodwin (Reagan's speechwriter and biographer), or that other Republican historian--what's 'is name?--wrote about WWII and the decline of American morality, got caught plagiarizing wholesale.

Personally, I thought the DNC was boring as hell, and I wasn't impressed by Kerry's speech. But then I don't really care, because I think that adults should be able to get by without stars in their eyes and lots of free balloons.

 

[Flatlander]

This forum is for the more serious/focused discussions. Please keep the discussions to a friendly level. We understand that some topics will get heated at times. Lets keep it professional, and avoid any personal insults or similar activites out of those debates.

Thank you.

This is from the sticky at the top of the forum, which Kaith has provided as a policy directive for all who post here. Let's please try to follow that mandate, that we may facilitate the encouragement of others, who may be unfamiliar with the personalities here, to get involved. K? :asian:

 

[Cruentus]

This is from the sticky at the top of the forum, which Kaith has provided as a policy directive for all who post here. Let's please try to follow that mandate, that we may facilitate the encouragement of others, who may be unfamiliar with the personalities here, to get involved. K? :asian:

There is nothing wrong with a little heat...just as long as there are no personal attacks. I haven't seen any so far, so I think things are O.K. so far. Right or wrong?

 

[Flatlander]

I would have rather not needed to qualify this any further. Heat is fine Paul. But crass is not "friendly". Fair enough? Otherwise, yes political discussion will tend toward antagonism. Hence the importance of the mindfullness of how the things we post read to others.:asian:

 

[Kane]

Me, I tend to think that dragging the country into an unnecessary war based on flimsy and/or faked evidence is a little more serious than a pompous campaign phrase or three. I tend to think that having your VP (shades of Spiro Agnew...remember him? he got canned because he was taking envelopes stuffed with cash from developers, sitting in the VP's chair, in his office...) entangled with companies like Halliburton, which somehow mysteriously get a no-bid contract (no-bid contracts are illegal, incidentally) worth billions is a little more serious than your wife's money. I even tend to think that taking big chunks of campaign money and support from a company--Enron; heard of 'em?--that subsequently goes bankrupt from lying about revenue and debts, screws tens of thousands of employees out of their stocks and retirement benefits, and gets caught manipulating prices illegally, is somewhat more morally serious than, say, being a personal injury lawyer.

And guess who was in support in this so called "fake evidence" war? Kerry was. Kerry supported the war bigger than many other Americans. And now he is saying how horrible Bush was to get us dragged into the war, when he clearly blocks the path that it might have been his support that leads us into this war.

Speaking of the war, I think it was justified clearly. Why? We liberated a company from a Stalin-like dictator. As for the Weapons of Mass Destructions, I’m sure we will find them buried somewhere in the sands of the dessert.

Kerry also is a very unpredictable man. I mean, he says life begins in conception, and yet he is pro-choice. MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND! You know what I’m saying?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Honestly, I'm tired of hearing this "waffling" propoganda from the far right. Kerry has some beliefs, and supports certain legislation. I don't remember hearing him say "life begins at conception", but if he did, so what? Does that mean that his personal beliefs would take the right to a safe a legal abortion away from someone who thinks differently? Or are you arguing that politicians should turn their personal feelings about this very private issue, which is about a woman controlling her own body and reproductive rights, into something that they dictate?

Kerry supported the war because, like so many others in Congress, they *believed the President and his staff*. Crazy, huh? But guess what? The evidence the Administration assured us was there, isn't there. Now Congress members are realizing that they - and the American people - were duped, for ulterior motives for going into Iraq. If there are no WMD, why are we there? Are we liberating other countries from dictators and horrible conditions? Hello, North Korea? Heck no! Our current President has gone where his family and cronies can make money, at the cost of over-extended troops who are dying in Iraq, while Halliburton LOSES money and is given more.
Long answer short, no, I don't know what you're saying. Bush has renegged on so many of his election campaign promises, it's almost funny. But yet not.

 

[michaeledward]

And guess who was in support in this so called "fake evidence" war? Kerry was. Kerry supported the war bigger than many other Americans. And now he is saying how horrible Bush was to get us dragged into the war, when he clearly blocks the path that it might have been his support that leads us into this war.

Speaking of the war, I think it was justified clearly. Why? We liberated a company from a Stalin-like dictator. As for the Weapons of Mass Destructions, I’m sure we will find them buried somewhere in the sands of the dessert.

Kerry also is a very unpredictable man. I mean, he says life begins in conception, and yet he is pro-choice. MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MIND! You know what I’m saying?

Yeah ... I would prefer to have a Kucinich vs Bush race (Kucinich would win), but that isn't the way it works in this country. It's Kerry V Bush. So are you telling me that because it was 'fake evidence' (which, if the evidence was faked, who were the people controlling it and faking it?) that you aren't going to support Kerry. ... Well then, why would you support Bush.

If the fake evidence is bad for one ... shouldn't it be bad for both. Or, Should the person who figured out he was duped first get some extra cookies .... Now who would that be.

Concerning Weapons of Mass Destruction I have two words : SHELF LIFE

"Saddam used weapons of mass destruction ... we know so (says the ranting right) ... in fact, we told him where to use them, we provided him intelligence on where they would be most effective -- signed "DICK CHENEY& DONALD RUMSFELD"

Who is the next Stalin-Like dictator we are going to depose? Ashcroft, perhaps?

Please - Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

God, I love rationalization.

Let me just echo what's already been said. First off, here's what, "pro-choice," means: it means that you believe that everybody should make this particular decision themselves, without interference from the government. If you believe that abortion is wrong, then your choice is that you do not have one. If you believe that there's nothing morally wrong with it, and you choose to have an abortion, then that's your decision. Pro-CHOICE, get it? You get to choose; not the government, not the church down the road, you CHOOSE. It's perfectly logically consistent to argue that you believe abortion is wrong, but that you believe other people's cchoices should also be respected.

What's logically INconsistent is to be, say, Henry Hyde, who's fought choice every step of the way, but schlepped his mistress off to an abortion clinic, then claimed that, "It was a youthful mistake," (he was 40 at the time) when he got caught.

Similarly, it's logically consistent for Kerry to have supported the war, given the evidence that he was shown, and given the wacky idea--which I believe some advocate?--that we should believe our President and support them in times of emergency. It's also logically consistent for him to basically say, "oops," once he got better information--Bush exaggerated like crazy, the "evidence," was faked in large part, and several different organizations and committees have now gone on record as saying that a) there were no WMDs, b) Iraq had no significant ties to Al Quaida, c) the country was not involved in 9/11.

You can believe all you want that there's a whole arsenal buried out there in the shifting sands, and that some day the roof--like in a James Bond flick--will slide back and the plots of The Insidious Dr. Fu Manchu Will Be Revealed. Alas, there's no evidence for it. Oops.

What's interesting, to me, is that none of this will have the slightest effect. You believe what you want to believe--probably because it suits the ideology you were raised with--and neither facts nor reason will change that a bit. It takes something else to get folks to look at reality, because reality is complex and tricky and scary.

It's fascinating to me, then, that generally the take on Kerry that you see on these forums goes something like, "Well, he's certainly not my ideal or my dream, but on balance, he's a decent choice, and a helluva lot better than what we've got now." And the take on Bush is something like, MY PRESIDENT RIGHT OR WRONG, AND ANYWAY HE'S MADE NO MISTAKES AND IS PERFECT. Such claims are characteristic of that field of ideation that Jacques Lacan identified as the Imaginary: a field of perfect, immaculate images, circulating arfound a fantasized, immaculate self-image.

 

[Kane]

It just seems to me that Kerry beats around the bush a lot. He isn't straight forward. Do we really want an unsure of himself president like that? Imagine someone terrorists bombs us and Kerry can’t make a decision to on whether we should attack or not. And then by the time he makes the decision, it is too late.

By the way, did anyone hear about Kerry's and his self-inflicted wounds? His gun mate in the Vietnam War said that Kerry put wounds on himself so he can leave the war early and get his three Purple Hearts. Now normally I wouldn’t believe such a thing, it could be just because the men who worked with him didn’t like him. However, it is nearly impossible to get three purple hearts while only staying three months. Men in that war have lost eyes and arms, and they only got one Purple Heart. Now isn’t that messed up? And those men stayed much longer in Vietnam. I think that is so messed up. And this stuff is said by the solders working along side with him. Why would they lie?

 

[BlueDragon1981]

Why would they lie....politics....persuasion....why does anyone lie. War is a rough time and people don't always see things correctly in times of emense preasure.

Bush beats around the bush too. (lol that is kind of wierd to write) Specifically about the economy. Jobs are not being created, I'm sorry. I see more jobs being lost. What I see are statistics that only represent certain areas and do not represent all of the unemployment. Many people just blow off the national debt but it will someday catch up to us...what then. Have every person including children in the United States write a $20,000 check to pay it off. Then lets repeal taxes on the rich people because they need the money to put back into the economy so it can trickle down to the poor people. That is crap. The tax cut only gave people money for one particular moment in life. Not worth what it will do in the long run.

I don't know how many people have to worry about this on this forum...but I will probably never be able to retire because the social security will not be there. Don't tell me he is not using it up.

What do you say about the Bush family owning a lot of oil stock. Prices for gas have gone up across the nation...which in turn makes the Bush family gain more money.

The war is a bunch of political propaganda. It does not make sense for us to be over there and it does not make sense for us to be worring about Iraq when there really is not any hope in them supporting the U.S. If Saddam commited so many crimes why is he still alive...I mean don't you think they would want him gone. Shouldn't we be concentrating on real threats like taking out Al Queda and working on North Korea before they actually do use WMD on us.

Kerry is not perfect, but he won the ticket. Nothing we can do about that now. I'm not for all of his ideas and what not, but I am for more of his agenda's than Bush's. No one in Politics is honest or straight forward...that is to bad really because it is making the average American citizen pay for what a few corrupt people do...but we can't really change that either.

I would never want the responsiblity or the role of President but what I would do if I was President would be a lot different than what is currently done.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

It just seems to me that Kerry beats around the bush a lot. He isn't straight forward.

For a politician, I find Kerry remarkably reasonable and consistent. Could you give me an example where he "beats around the bush"? What is he not addressing that you would like him to address? Is it just that he is refusing to call Bush names?

I will have to day that Bush is the least straight-forward President - he relies on this goofy, "folksy" thing, and looks like he's sincere, but he and his Administration have been lying to us (no evidence of WMD), and he has renegged on a bunch of promises. I'll support education! ...but not. I'll take care of the environment! ...but not. etc etc.

And since so many of the men Kerry served with stood up with him at the DNC, could you show me the newstory in which a man who served with kerry said he inflicted his wounds on himself? That's the first rumor I heard of that. Kerry's military service record is quite impressive - and the men he served with speak of him with great admiration. Doesn't sound like a poser to me.

 

[Brother John]

Did you see the Democratic Convention? How do you think it went? Are you convinced that Kerry will be a better president than Bush?

It probably went well, they usually do.
BUT I don't think they convince anyone, they motivate.
Neither the Democratic nor Republican conventions 'convince'. They are both smoke and mirrors, hoops that our candidates have to jump through. They often obfuscate as much as elucidate the issues. If you aren't paying attention through the long haul...they will mislead you, again...either side.

Your Brother
John

 

[Brother John]

Bush beats around the bush too.

POLITITIANS beat around the bush! Period.
I'm not 'anti-polititians/politics' by any means, but it's just the way things are I think.
It takes long term observation to make a good choice I feel. Campaigns stink. Campaigns are words and clapping. ACTION: now that's a convincer!
Well done is always better than well said.

Your Brother
John