D
Dixie
Guest
I also admire the man Jimmy Carter became and I thought his speech was stirring. Assuming you're watching, how about Obama? Wow! 
Hessian
Well-Known Member
For the brief time I endured Obama...
I caught nothing ut a recitation of the old Democratic "I feel your pain playbook"...sorta like this...
And I met a family of 9 living in a three room apartment who can't afford medicine for the 6 anemic kids....
And I talked with a woman who had been laid off by the winker-maker company because her job ended up going to Mexico and she can't survive with a 7.00/hr job.
and I met a transexual who bemoaned the lack of protection when she/it/he decided to take a job with the longshoreman.
And this pathetic plea was supposed to stir me? It disgusted me.
Unbelievable opposite of Kennedy: ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU....
I caught nothing ut a recitation of the old Democratic "I feel your pain playbook"...sorta like this...
And I met a family of 9 living in a three room apartment who can't afford medicine for the 6 anemic kids....
And I talked with a woman who had been laid off by the winker-maker company because her job ended up going to Mexico and she can't survive with a 7.00/hr job.
and I met a transexual who bemoaned the lack of protection when she/it/he decided to take a job with the longshoreman.
And this pathetic plea was supposed to stir me? It disgusted me.
Unbelievable opposite of Kennedy: ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU....
D
Dixie
Guest
I feel your pain Hessian - George Bush disgusts me every time he opens his mouth.
K
Kain99
Guest
I think the decision to have Obama speak for Kerry was a huge mistake. Psychologically, without even realizing it...people all over the country were thinking Obama sure sounds alot like Osama. 
crabcake
But wait, there's more...
WhoTF is Obama? 
I only caught some foriegn-speakin' chic in a red suit contradicting herself when she said her husband wouldn't trade America's sons and daughters for oil, then said this wonderful spectacle of soldiering earned his medals the old-fashioned way ... in Viet Nam of all places. Yea, cause that wasn't a controversial war at all or nuthin'. 
I only caught some foriegn-speakin' chic in a red suit contradicting herself when she said her husband wouldn't trade America's sons and daughters for oil, then said this wonderful spectacle of soldiering earned his medals the old-fashioned way ... in Viet Nam of all places. Yea, cause that wasn't a controversial war at all or nuthin'. 
I think he is a current State Senator from Ohio running for the US Senate, which BTW is a currently unopposed campiagn due to that clown that wanted his wife to perform sex acts in publc.Originally posted by crabcake
WhoTF is Obama?
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
This has happened at least twice before to my recollection; in 1984, with Mario Cuomo, and in 1996 with Susan Molinari.
Oddly enough, the most boring speech given in recent memory was one given in 1988 by a man who bored so many delegates, the only applause he got was the roar that went up as he spoke the words "in conclusion".
That man was Bill Clinton.
I wouldn't put too much faith in convention speeches. They tend to have no connection with political reality.
To me, it sounded like a whole bunch of Democrats trying to shy away from the "liberal" label. Obama, Osama...whatever his name is.....tried to convince everyone that "...shucks....we just plain ole moderate Democrats....not liberals....not conservatives...the UNITED States of America...."
Don't buy it for a minute......the Kerry ticket is the most liberal in recent memory no matter who trys to tell you differently.
Sounded just like a snake oil salesman......
Don't buy it for a minute......the Kerry ticket is the most liberal in recent memory no matter who trys to tell you differently.
Sounded just like a snake oil salesman......
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
The thing about all this is, this was his wife, and she declined. And apparently was NOT the source of the leak, because she supports his candidacy.
Apparently, *wanting* to do kinky things with your own wife is terrible, but actually doing kinky things in the Oval Office with an intern is ok.
I thought the outing of the divorce records to be one of the dirtiest stunts I have ever seen.
Originally posted by Voter2002
To me, it sounded like a whole bunch of Democrats trying to shy away from the "liberal" label. Obama, Osama...whatever his name is.....tried to convince everyone that "...shucks....we just plain ole moderate Democrats....not liberals....not conservatives...the UNITED States of America...."
Don't buy it for a minute......the Kerry ticket is the most liberal in recent memory no matter who trys to tell you differently.
First of all, the Obama, Osama connections are downright mean. He even talked last night about how some kid of a Kenyan immigrant with a funny name could go to Harvard and become a keynote speaker at a national convention. Obama came from obscurity to win the Democratic primary with a huge margin and he was leading by double digits in the polls even before Ryan pulled out and his divorce records were made public.
Now voter2002, if wanting health care for the poor and the middle class is liberal, then fine call us liberals. If believing that the deficit is something to be tackled and not ignored, then yes we're liberals. If believing that when we go to war, we should do so when we have partners, then we're liberals. If believing that government waste should be cut not only in welfare, but the Pentagon as well, then we're liberals. What is wrong with being liberal anyway. Yes, it is an ideology that you disagree with, but it is a perfectly valid ideology when it is taken to a medium degree. Perhaps that this is the time for a left-of-center administration; we need more jobs, a better plan in Iraq, and a budget that is responsible.
President Bush is a good man; one who deserves respect for his immediate leadership after 9/11 and his ability to decide that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power. But we have to realize that he failed to gain allies in the war in Iraq because he sought to attack too soon. This decision to ignore the rest of the world has caused the goodwill of the world after 9/11 to descend into hatred and opposition. His Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld failed to make correct war preparations from the troop level to the sort of units used in combat. He has caused foreign leaders to oppose us so much that there is no way that the burden in Iraq could be shared with the world community. Some must wonder now if our former allies and other nations are giving us all the information they have concerning terrorists. The war on terror is not an American endeavor; it is a worldwide one that must involve the intelligence agencies across the world. Having such disregard for other nations, as the Bush administration has, has hurt us with our allies and could endanger the execution of the War on Terror. On top of Iraq, we have lost 1.8 million jobs and while there has been recent job creation, wages continue to stay below the rate of inflation and new jobs are not as high-paying and benefit rich as past ones. Our long-term economic prospects, meanwhile, are degrading because of a $500 billion deficit.
I believe that there is a better way for this nation and I believe that John Kerry and John Edwards represent that way.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
"But we have to realize that he failed to gain allies in the war in Iraq because he sought to attack too soon. This decision to ignore the rest of the world has caused the goodwill of the world after 9/11 to descend into hatred and opposition."
France made it clear - Chirac said they were NEVER going to sanction war as an option, which meant the Security Council was never going to change. I don't think that Russia or Germany were going to go no matter what. So "rush to war" is a pretty lame reason. The UN Resolutions and the bill for the Iraq war came in the fall of 2002. Five to six months later we were at war. In actuality, a LONGER time than we gave him the *last* time, in which we did build a HUGE coalition (and France, Germany and Russia only participated grudgingly or not at all). And THAT war was even more bitterly debated along party lines than the vote on this one.
I don't think the case can be made either that we blew the goodwill of the world after 9/11. It really wasn't long before our friends were saying "hey, I feel for you, but YOU HAD IT COMING". I personally find it nigh unto impossible that goodwill can turn to hate so easily, unless the goodwill wasn't terribly sincere, or the hatred and opposition isn't oversold. It's one thing for the complaints to be about the "cowboy Bush" and our military action, but what I saw was complaints from *everything* - our culture, our arrogance, our meddling around the world for generations. Suddenly there was this huge anger about stuff that happened decades ago. No, they were sympathetic, but they weren't on our side. When we went to Afghanistan to kick the butts of the men who DID do 9/11, they didn't like that either. They didn't like any scenario with Americans fighting back.
I suspect that the "hatred" isn't as deep as people make it out to be.
France made it clear - Chirac said they were NEVER going to sanction war as an option, which meant the Security Council was never going to change. I don't think that Russia or Germany were going to go no matter what. So "rush to war" is a pretty lame reason. The UN Resolutions and the bill for the Iraq war came in the fall of 2002. Five to six months later we were at war. In actuality, a LONGER time than we gave him the *last* time, in which we did build a HUGE coalition (and France, Germany and Russia only participated grudgingly or not at all). And THAT war was even more bitterly debated along party lines than the vote on this one.
I don't think the case can be made either that we blew the goodwill of the world after 9/11. It really wasn't long before our friends were saying "hey, I feel for you, but YOU HAD IT COMING". I personally find it nigh unto impossible that goodwill can turn to hate so easily, unless the goodwill wasn't terribly sincere, or the hatred and opposition isn't oversold. It's one thing for the complaints to be about the "cowboy Bush" and our military action, but what I saw was complaints from *everything* - our culture, our arrogance, our meddling around the world for generations. Suddenly there was this huge anger about stuff that happened decades ago. No, they were sympathetic, but they weren't on our side. When we went to Afghanistan to kick the butts of the men who DID do 9/11, they didn't like that either. They didn't like any scenario with Americans fighting back.
I suspect that the "hatred" isn't as deep as people make it out to be.
Failed to gain allies? We had allies, we had the decision of UN Security Council giving Iraq a last chance and they failed to comply, and he had the authorization of the Congress of the United States. Should he have waited until an attack was conducted on our homeland prior to acting? I don’t think so.
Rumsfeld failed to make preparations? Then how come we got to Baghdad so quick, from not being prepared? What wasn’t accounted for was the military collapsing and illegally blending in with non-combatants, the Iraqis releasing hundreds of criminals back into the populace, the external insurgents conducting terrorist attacks and the following policing required now that Iraq was defeated. I don’t know about you but a lot of people think defeating a nation and returning it to a sovereign entity is easy. It isn’t and I think many put unrealistic expectations on our military to do it quickly, cheaply, and without loss of life. It can’t be done and we shouldn’t expect it to be done in that manner. Hell we still have troops in Germany, Japan, and Korea decades after the combat had stopped. Why is it that different expectations are held towards Iraq?
He didn’t cause foreign leaders to go against us, it was the illegal deals that they had been conducting with Iraq that they wanted to keep secret. They had been allies of Iraq; they had been funding much of what was wrong with that nation to obtain oil and to sell their military hardware to them.
You say that the war on terror is a worldwide endeavor, well unless we are leading that war who do you think would be out there doing it? France? We are still prosecuting that war and by all indication Iraq has been involved in at least funding terror or providing a haven for terrorists to live and always has held a desire to do harm to us. Ignoring them would have been a disservice to the American people’s right to security.
As to the economy I could have sworn that just the other day Mr. Greenspan stated that without the tax cuts sought and gained by Bush we would be in a severe recession which would have resulted with even more losses and a larger deficit. The problem with the deficit as I see it is that Congress has yet to rein their spending habits and work at reducing unnecessary programs.
You can vote for whomever you want (or can you), but this Democrat will be voting for keeping the current administration for another four years.
SurfaceTension
New Member
And that's the key point....We're "hated" when we have the gall look out for our own interests (e.g. Kyoto) and "respected" when we cave to any outside demand.
It really kinda parallels the class-warfare tactics used by politicians here... The US is "The Rich", who will only be "respected" once they are rich no more (and everyone just loves to see them taken down a notch whenever possible). Dems and the UN are kindred spirits.
Last edited: