RNC Avoids Issues, Focuses on Attacking Kerry...DNC Focused on Issues, Not Bush

[Chadder007]

404 DNC Focusing on issues not found.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur

Prepare yourself for 2008, then. I think we'll see a return to centrist ideals. But, only if the GOP can wrest control back from the neocons and the Christian Right. Giulani will probably be the top GOP candidate in 2008, my guess.

It's too bad you're too busy throwing around stereotypes to think about what you're saying.

It's too bad you're posting non-sensical messages.

Such as...? Will it all make sense to you if I start throwing around the term NeoLiberace?

Originally posted by: conjur

Text

Anyone who posts at DU is a bloody moron. Anyone who puts any credence in anything posted at DU is even worse.

I could say the same thing about the NY Times with respect to political articles, yet here you are posting one. A source that doesn't particularly agree with your ideals can still have factual information. The stats you posted are interesting, but a footnote - nothing more.

Uh, no.

The NY Times is a quite-respected source of news.

DU is filled with internet kiddies and punks with atrocious spelling and bad manners.

The NY Times is respected by you, because it supports your political agenda with great fervor. It's not held in high regard by those who want unbiased news. As I said, both sources can have facts in their content, though it is a small fraction in either case.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Shockwave
Hot damn this is why I love politics!! Nothing can bring out a mans opinion faster, because politics is by and large nothing but opinions. Good stuff, good stuff indeed.

Well, regardless of who does what or who is misrepresenting their past or what have you, one thing is for sure. The day of reckoning ias coming, and soon enough we'll see who the people feel should lead them.

On a side note, I dont want to shoot anyone. But on some strange, perverted level, the idea of popping a hippie who shouts peace and throws rocks and burns signs.... Well, it kinda appeals to me in a funny way......

I have a strange perversion too. I sometimes imagine taking a facist neocon and crushing there head until it pops like a zit. Oh btw, I could probably do it too. :laugh: Of course, this is unproven. Hot Pocket anybody?

Sounds like fun. But I'll give you a heads up. Careful, most of the facist neocons are well armed. You might find even getting into head crushing distance to be a feat in and of itself.

As such, I recommend an ambush.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Chadder007
404 DNC Focusing on issues not found.

RNC's issues.... YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIE IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR US!!!

..... BOOOOOOOGAH!!!!

WE'LL SAVE YOUR LIFE!!! BOOOOOOOOGAH!!!!

did we mention that you're ALL GONNA DIE IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR US?!?!?!?!

BOOOOOGAH!

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Shockwave
Hot damn this is why I love politics!! Nothing can bring out a mans opinion faster, because politics is by and large nothing but opinions. Good stuff, good stuff indeed.

Well, regardless of who does what or who is misrepresenting their past or what have you, one thing is for sure. The day of reckoning ias coming, and soon enough we'll see who the people feel should lead them.

On a side note, I dont want to shoot anyone. But on some strange, perverted level, the idea of popping a hippie who shouts peace and throws rocks and burns signs.... Well, it kinda appeals to me in a funny way......

I have a strange perversion too. I sometimes imagine taking a facist neocon and crushing there head until it pops like a zit. Oh btw, I could probably do it too. :laugh: Of course, this is unproven. Hot Pocket anybody?

Sounds like fun. But I'll give you a heads up. Careful, most of the facist neocons are well armed. You might find even getting into head crushing distance to be a feat in and of itself.

As such, I recommend an ambush.

I'm too much of a straight-forward guy for ambushes. If you shoot me, the bullets would just bounce off. Dun dun dun DUNNNNN!

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

I'm too much of a straight-forward guy for ambushes. If you shoot me, the bullets would just bounce off. Dun dun dun DUNNNNN!

OMG!!! YOU HAVE A RED CAPE TOO?!?! :Q

This battle will rage far and wide......

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur

Prepare yourself for 2008, then. I think we'll see a return to centrist ideals. But, only if the GOP can wrest control back from the neocons and the Christian Right. Giulani will probably be the top GOP candidate in 2008, my guess.

It's too bad you're too busy throwing around stereotypes to think about what you're saying.

It's too bad you're posting non-sensical messages.

Such as...? Will it all make sense to you if I start throwing around the term NeoLiberace?

Originally posted by: conjur

Text

Anyone who posts at DU is a bloody moron. Anyone who puts any credence in anything posted at DU is even worse.

I could say the same thing about the NY Times with respect to political articles, yet here you are posting one. A source that doesn't particularly agree with your ideals can still have factual information. The stats you posted are interesting, but a footnote - nothing more.

Uh, no.

The NY Times is a quite-respected source of news.

DU is filled with internet kiddies and punks with atrocious spelling and bad manners.

The NY Times is respected by you, because it supports your political agenda with great fervor. It's not held in high regard by those who want unbiased news. As I said, both sources can have facts in their content, though it is a small fraction in either case.

Uh, wrong again!

I've long respected the NY Times. That's why I'm a subscriber. And, I've been a Republican my entire adult life and then some. Sorta throws a wrench into your generalization, doesn't it?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh, wrong again!

I've long respected the NY Times. That's why I'm a subscriber. And, I've been a Republican my entire adult life and then some. Sorta throws a wrench into your generalization, doesn't it?

You can't tell me with any degree of sincerity that the NY Times is not a liberal-slanted publication. I honestly don't care whether or not you hold it in high esteem. I also sincerely doubt you've been a Republican your entire life, as you consistently post some of the most liberal rhetoric that is found here.

 

[Todd33]

NYT op-ed is slanted liberal, the new org isn't as far as I can tell. Remember that the NYT was resposible for publishing Cheney's fake Iraqi WMD stories to beat the drums of war? They even had to come out and write an apology for not being more skeptical on the WMD stories. So why would a liberal paper help the White House bet the war drums?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh, wrong again!

I've long respected the NY Times. That's why I'm a subscriber. And, I've been a Republican my entire adult life and then some. Sorta throws a wrench into your generalization, doesn't it?

You can't tell me with any degree of sincerity that the NY Times is not a liberal-slanted publication. I honestly don't care whether or not you hold it in high esteem. I also sincerely doubt you've been a Republican your entire life, as you consistently post some of the most liberal rhetoric that is found here.

The NYT may be more of a libertarian slant but not liberal. That whole "freedom of the press" thing. Sort of flies in the face of the authoritarian Bush administration, eh? No wonder you think it's liberal. I suppose you think FOX News is centrist?

As for your opinion of my past, don't judge me by my recent posts. I know you aren't some n00b to this board so you know better.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh, wrong again!

I've long respected the NY Times. That's why I'm a subscriber. And, I've been a Republican my entire adult life and then some. Sorta throws a wrench into your generalization, doesn't it?

You can't tell me with any degree of sincerity that the NY Times is not a liberal-slanted publication. I honestly don't care whether or not you hold it in high esteem. I also sincerely doubt you've been a Republican your entire life, as you consistently post some of the most liberal rhetoric that is found here.

Oh, they'll try to claim it's not liberal - just like they try to claim other news outlets aren't.
Oh, and conjur used to be a Republican - he switched sometime last year after sniffing too much of the left's BS. We haven't been able to wake him up since.

CsG

 

[0roo0roo]

the rnc's message just comes down to "don't rock the boat, or terrorists will kill you! be very afraid, very very afraid!!..... vote bush!"

 

[Rob9874]

This is a stupid point. I've watched both conventions, and both sides discuss the issues, as well as why the other candidate sucks. Either side would be stupid if they didn't make the other candidate look bad. You have to make your case for why voters shouldn't vote for the other guy.

It's funny to hear Edwards campaigning, as he blasts the other side for negative campagning.

<paraphrase>"Those stupid a$$holes are attacking the candidates, where we discuss the issues. Where do they get off attacking us personally? Only an ignorant fool, like Bush, would resort to personal attacks. He's so stupid. Why would you vote for such a stupid person, who uses personal attacks. We would never do that."</paraphrase>

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Shockwave
Swift boat vets arent lying. Kerry was questionable and generally a failure as a soldier and he would be no better as a president.

And for the record, the Dumocrats ARE "planning" a revolt. What they fail to realize is there the very ones who have pushed gun control / gun bans for the past 20 years, and now the only thing they have left to use on a march to Capitol Hill is their patcholi sticks.


Text

Which is massively funny in my eyes. They finally realize (maybe, but doubtful) why the American public MUST be armed. Of course, as usual with Dumbocrats their all talk and no show. Bush will get re-elected and they'll go back to getting high.
And if they do take to the streets? Well, I'll stand strong beside my own, and by God I can assure you the patcholi stick is no match for high power combat rifles.

Revolt? I don't think republicans are dumb, but I think you are.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Shockwave
Hot damn this is why I love politics!! Nothing can bring out a mans opinion faster, because politics is by and large nothing but opinions. Good stuff, good stuff indeed.

Well, regardless of who does what or who is misrepresenting their past or what have you, one thing is for sure. The day of reckoning ias coming, and soon enough we'll see who the people feel should lead them.

On a side note, I dont want to shoot anyone. But on some strange, perverted level, the idea of popping a hippie who shouts peace and throws rocks and burns signs.... Well, it kinda appeals to me in a funny way......

Day of Reckoning... I doubt it. Which ever side wins, it'll be close. And close elections don't go down as day's of reckoning.

 

[viivo]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
the rnc's message just comes down to "don't rock the boat, or terrorists will kill you! be very afraid, very very afraid!!..... vote bush!"

In addition to "Kerry will have to buy kneepads for all the groveling he will do before the UN and Europe! He'll need a robe because he is the candidate of terrorists. Bush has offered him a curly blonde wig and a lolly pop because he'll need them when he's too busy crying than attacking countries that had nothing to do with 9/11!"

It's fun, though. I've also noticed the more hostile tone of the speakers at the RNC. Zell was foaming at the mouth last night, and I think Cheney actually made it past 10 words per minute.

 

[conjur]

The GOP Hijacks 9/11
http://www.thenation.com/doc.m...20040920&amp;s=editors

More than a thousand days have passed since September 11, 2001, yet the wounds are still raw. In recent newspaper pictures, grief was still evident in the faces of relatives of those who died in the terrorist attacks as they listened to Congressional testimony about 9/11 intelligence failures.

All the more reason, then, that the Republican Party should avoid using the attacks as a political prop. Yet that is precisely what happened at its national convention. Any uncertainty about whether the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign would exploit the memory of the victims of 9/11 disappeared on the convention's first night, when former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani went so far as to argue that Bush should be re-elected in order to honor the dead. "We owe that much and more to the loved ones and heroes we lost on September 11," the possible future presidential candidate said as a backdrop of the New York skyline appeared behind him.

If Giuliani's exploitation of 9/11 was profoundly distasteful--and roundly condemned as such by family members of the dead--Senator John McCain was subtler but no less exploitative when he suggested that the invasion of Iraq should be seen as a part of the response to 9/11. Never mind that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda; McCain argued that the war in Iraq and the "war on terrorism" are one. And never mind that there can be no war on terrorism, since terrorism involves a tactic, not an organization or state; McCain argues that "only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war."

Was this all just convention rhetoric? No way. The Republicans are using 9/11 because they know that angry and fearful citizens will put rational thought aside to follow a leader who stirs their blood. Giuliani and McCain were trying out themes for the fall campaign.

This is a dangerous game, however, not just a despicable political tactic. As Dale Maharidge reports on page 11, after spending more than two years crisscrossing the heartland, he finds that the 9/11 appeals tap into a growing fury over conditions that seem incapable of being righted but have nothing to do with terrorism. Maharidge writes, "The 9/11 attacks were not solely the genesis but an amplifier of pre-existing tensions--rooted in the radically transformed American economy, from a manufacturing dynamo to that of millions of jobs of the Wal-Mart variety." With at least 1 million fewer jobs than when George W. Bush took office and with more than 35 million Americans living in poverty and 45 million without health insurance, millions of American workers are living in a 2004 version of the Depression. Some--not many, but a growing number--are ready to blame Muslims or Arabs or whoever else can be pointed to as the cause of their problems.

Bush may have spoken more accurately than he knew (though he later claimed he'd been misunderstood) about the "war on terror" when he said in an interview broadcast on the convention's opening day, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." Rather than criticizing the President for what they are calling a defeatist statement, the Kerry campaign and other Democrats should welcome his comment as a sign that Bush, albeit belatedly, is learning the art of nuance.

What this country needs between now and November 2 is not a debate over who will be a better "war President." We need a debate over how to extricate America from Iraq, and how to attack the demons of poverty, joblessness and sickness that threaten so many Americans every day. Jingoism and fearmongering are cheap ways to avoid hard issues.

I think the RNC's tactic to rape the memories of 9/11 are going to come back and bite them in the ass.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Shockwave
Swift boat vets arent lying. Kerry was questionable and generally a failure as a soldier and he would be no better as a president.

And for the record, the Dumocrats ARE "planning" a revolt. What they fail to realize is there the very ones who have pushed gun control / gun bans for the past 20 years, and now the only thing they have left to use on a march to Capitol Hill is their patcholi sticks.


Text

Which is massively funny in my eyes. They finally realize (maybe, but doubtful) why the American public MUST be armed. Of course, as usual with Dumbocrats their all talk and no show. Bush will get re-elected and they'll go back to getting high.
And if they do take to the streets? Well, I'll stand strong beside my own, and by God I can assure you the patcholi stick is no match for high power combat rifles.

:roll:

Wow. SBV? Who brought that up? Guns? Think you are the only one with them? You make me chuckle.

 

[Gaard]

Anyone who can't admit seeing the obvious politicizing of 9/11 by the GOP is, imo, blind or dishonest. (Or they just refuse to admit it. )

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Shockwave
Swift boat vets arent lying. Kerry was questionable and generally a failure as a soldier and he would be no better as a president.

And for the record, the Dumocrats ARE "planning" a revolt. What they fail to realize is there the very ones who have pushed gun control / gun bans for the past 20 years, and now the only thing they have left to use on a march to Capitol Hill is their patcholi sticks.


Text

Which is massively funny in my eyes. They finally realize (maybe, but doubtful) why the American public MUST be armed. Of course, as usual with Dumbocrats their all talk and no show. Bush will get re-elected and they'll go back to getting high.
And if they do take to the streets? Well, I'll stand strong beside my own, and by God I can assure you the patcholi stick is no match for high power combat rifles.

Sounds good to me you all can have Texas and all the crap in the middle while the majority of the people on the coasts have you surrounded waiting for you to step foot into the cities for some good close-in action (people already training for this stuff for years) where a gun ain't gonna help squat muhahahaha *fires up a civ3 game*

 

[Vadatajs]

All the more reason, then, that the Republican Party should avoid using the attacks as a political prop. Yet that is precisely what happened at its national convention. Any uncertainty about whether the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign would exploit the memory of the victims of 9/11 disappeared on the convention's first night, when former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani went so far as to argue that Bush should be re-elected in order to honor the dead. "We owe that much and more to the loved ones and heroes we lost on September 11," the possible future presidential candidate said as a backdrop of the New York skyline appeared behind him.

It is disgusting (and ironic) that they're making Bush's biggest failure as president the central plank in his platform for reelection. ALL republicans EVERYWHERE should be ashamed.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Giuliani won't win the nomination. If anything, from what I've been hearing, the Republican party has no intentions of moving towards the center on social issues. It seems as if they are going way right these days on social issues.

Polls show he would have backing by 46% of the republican party. Though Im betting on a McCain/Giuliani ticket in 2008.

 

[Darkhawk28]

This is going to sound really bad, but here goes....

Giuliani is a little too ummmmm ethnic for a lot of the southern state Republicans to wholeheartedly endorse.

Edit: For all those who may want to flame me for such a comment, let me remind you.....

1) Look at my sig.

2) I live in Missouri.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur
Pathetic, isn't it?

That the American Public is buying it..well yes but I also think Kerry is as much to blame by being such a weak indivdual. The Swiftboat Liars really did a number on him and instead of sacking it up and going after them he sat by the sidelines and whined foul.

Agreed. Kerry fell for a trap that he set for himself. Rove must be laughing his ass off. I blame McAuliffe, mostly. He's rather ineffectual as chairman of the DNC.

Actually what is pathetic is the choices we have for our leader. You'd think that we would have a couple great and accomplished individuals to pick from instead of two incompetent Wankers like Kerry and the Dub.

Prepare yourself for 2008, then. I think we'll see a return to centrist ideals. But, only if the GOP can wrest control back from the neocons and the Christian Right. Giulani will probably be the top GOP candidate in 2008, my guess.

Dont count our Arnold or even McCain, although I doubt he will run. Oh and maybe Condy Rice will run??

Rice vs. Hillary Clinton, hehehe

 

[conjur]

Rice's political career is over.
Hillary is not a viable candidate. If Kerry's elected, you'll see he and Edwards going for 4 more.
McCain has said he won't run again and I believe him in that respect.
Arnold is ineligible to run for President.