Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
RNC Plans: Protestors=Democratic Disrespect  
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21637 posts, RR: 55
Posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1101 times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/politics/campaign/22repubs.html?pagewanted=1&th

I don't normally start these kind of threads, but this is so ridiculous I just had to. Apparently, Bush's advisers have decided that even though they're actually going to start saying what they will do to help the country back on its way, they'll still be bashing the democrats as usual.

Most of all, Mr. Bush's aides said that after five months in which they have focused almost exclusively on attacking Mr. Kerry, the president will use his speech to offer what they asserted would be expansive plans for a second term, in an effort to underline what they argued was Mr. Kerry's failure to talk about the future at his own convention.

I don't think I've ever heard a party acknowledge that they were using negative attacks this way. Well, at least they're honest about it.

Mr. Bush's advisers said they were girding for the most extensive street demonstrations at any political convention since the Democrats nominated Hubert H. Humphrey in Chicago in 1968. But in contrast to that convention, which was severely undermined by televised displays of street rioting, Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president

Disrespect? Since when did actually standing up and saying what you think about something qualify as disrespect?

With thousands of demonstrators coming to New York, Mr. Bush's aides said they expected competition for attention but said that posed more of a risk for Democrats than for Republicans. Even though Democrats are not involved in organizing the protests, some of the participants are almost certain to be aligned with traditionally Democratic groups, like labor and environmentalists, and Republicans made clear they would seek to link Mr. Kerry and the Democratic Party to any disorder.

Wow, how typical of the Bush administration. If you don't like something, blame it on the Democrats, no matter how remote the connection is. Look, there would be protests for the RNC even if Stalin was running on the democatic ticket. Kerry has absolutely nothing to do with it. Face it George (and Karl, and all the others), part of a democracy is that people have the right to protest you if they don't like you. And people don't need to be told to protest. They can make that decision for themselves. But I guess that Bush doesn't get that (and why am I not surprised?). Look George, stop screwing with the 1st Amendment, and just deal with it. Just do what the Democrats did in Boston and ignore them. And most of them will go away. But if you antagonize them like this, you'll never hear the end of it. Isn't that pretty common knowledge? I guess not in this Administration.



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1081 times:

Disrespect? Since when did actually standing up and saying what you think about something qualify as disrespect?

Well, a guy, as I pointed out in another thread, got fired for protesting the president. To these right wing clowns, it goes back to "you're either for us or against us." And, if you're against them in any way, you're un-American, or anti-American, or evil incarnate. Seems they simply cannot tolerate any kind of dissent any more-either you agree with the president, or your life will be made miserable.

Back in the USSR, baby.

If you don't like something, blame it on the Democrats, no matter how remote the connection is.

That's the conservative m/o: no facts, just blame the other guy. I'm not surprised by this.

But I think the GOP will be terribly surprised that it impacts them negatively, and not the Democrats.

Now, sit back, and wait for the RWAK's to show up here, to spin this.  Smile


User currently offlineRen41 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1524 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1073 times:

That's the conservative m/o: no facts, just blame the other guy. I'm not surprised by this.

Did you actually watch the DNC? All I got out of it was that Kerry will "do things better than Bush". I didn't hear many facts.


User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1066 times:

God, between this and the post about the guy who got fired from his job...From using a period of time where everyone was too shocked to question anything and dragging us into an unjustified war, to financing a group of people to dirty up a record of not one, but two honored war veterans.

I'm honestly scared for my country. It scares me that this election is so close, that Bush has a chance at getting reelected. It scares me that people actually support his perversion of power, not just blindly, but enthusiastically. I'm scared how this country is so divided, even after 9/11 when we should be together and stronger.

I'm scared that Bush's war had done nothing but fuel the fire of hatred for my country. I'm scared his focus on Iraq has made us open to more terrorist events that will kill more innocents further take our basic freedoms away. I'm scared justice will never be done. After three years, Bin Laden is still alive.

I don't like what this man and his cabinet and policies are turning my country into. And to openly admit they're going to attack, attack, attack at the convention should show you the arrogance they have. If I have one shred of respect for American society left, I pray that the people see though it.

B


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1061 times:

to financing a group of people to dirty up a record of not one, but two honored war veterans.

Make it three: the Republican Party did it in George against Max Cleland. Seems for the GOP that only Republicans are allowed to have honorable military service, even if they dodge the war by letting dad get them in the Guard.


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1055 times:

Tell us again Alpha... What was your honorable service that lets you point the finger at ANYONE who served? Guard or Active?



User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17511 posts, RR: 45
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1055 times:

" I'm scared how this country is so divided,"

It's actually not....just the loudmouths in the extreme wings of each party have gotten louder and more antagonistic. Kerry and Bush are essentially the same man with minor differences; they HAVE to be because the election is won at the center, where most of the country is. Both support the war, both are opposed to gay marriage, both understand the reality of outsourcing, etc..



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1054 times:

the Republican Party did it in Georgia against Max Cleland.

How could I forget, my first election voting as a citizen of the "forward thinking" state of Georgia.

Disgraceful. I wonder how Saxby Chambliss sleeps at night?

B


User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1050 times:

Kerry and Bush are essentially the same man with minor differences

One big difference is that Bush has done nothing but prove he doesn't deserve to be president over the last four years, to me, and to countless others, including your fellow republicans.

Guys, they are telling you ahead of time they are going to attack the democrats. Unless you are so far off the right edge that you actually look forward to that gleefully, this would tell you something. All you're gonna get inserted in your brains is negativity. That does not solve our problems, it deflects them

I'm tired of the negativity! I want to start seeing results. Where is the Bush that said he wants to help America "start the healing process" back in 2000? What happened to health care, education, the environment? Remember those issues? Now it's just war, terror, and unemployment. He's had four years, and unprecedented support in a post 9/11 country. What happened?

He's had his chance, I believe it's past time to get a different way of thinking in office.

B


User currently offlineBoeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1011 times:

As scary as this is, it does not surprise me. This administration has not been a supporter of the First Amendment. Hopefully the common-sense electorate will see through this.


Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1010 times:

And Kerry does not support the more important second amendment

That is the one that protects the first amendment




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineJasepl From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, RR: 39
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1004 times:

What is it with American politics? Is it just me, or is US politics actually as petty and immature as it looks from the outside? I mean in most countries people just wouldn't care if you had an affair, or if you told a reporter to eff off, or even if you had a drink or 20 when you were 18.

Are these things really "issues" or are they simply those that get the most press?


User currently offlineJamesag96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 999 times:

Did any of you folks actually watch the DNC?

All this talk about avoiding Bush Bashing leading up to the Convention, and then as soon as it started it flowed like a river.

Oh, and Alf that guy deserved to get fired. He has the right to say whatever he wants, as far as I know he didn't go to jail for it...his employer has the right to say what ever they want too...and that day it was "You're Fired."

If I as a representative of my company, go out and damage the reputation of our client, or otherwise make an ass of myself causing negative affects to the bottom line I'd be out.

I am sure he knew what he was doing when he received those tix.



Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 988 times:

And Kerry does not support the more important second amendment

Yes, he hunts, but he doesn't support the 2nd Amendment.

He doesn't support it the way YOU want it: firearms everywhere.

What an assinine statement.

That is the one that protects the first amendment

Actually, that's a bald-faced lie, and you know it. What has protect the 1st Amendment for 200 years is the fact court system, not firearms. I haven't seen guns used to back the 1st Amendment often, cowboy.

And it's ironic, you think that way, but here we have an administration who has the most "liberal" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, yet they threaten the 1st Amenedment constantly, becuase of paranoia of terrorism.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 994 times:

Well, a guy, as I pointed out in another thread, got fired for protesting the president.

I still don't see the point in all the bellyaching over this:
He exercised his freedom of expression, and his private employer exercised its. Where's the conflict??




Both support the war, both are opposed to gay marriage, both understand the reality of outsourcing, etc

Superficially yes, but you need to look further in if in order to truly comprehend what truly defines each candidate:

i.e., they can say they [don't] support any issue, but the crux is whether or not they intend/propose to take action for/against it!

Bush, for example: continues to promote and finance the war; was willing to go through with the ammendment against gay marriage; but fails to address the issue of outsourcing (for those who assume their is one).

Kerry, on the other hand: can only bash, stifle finance, and never propose a blessed alternative to the war; says he doesn't support gay marriage, but doesn't propose a thing to prevent it from happening in the most likely manner that it would come about (i.e., the courts); but he does indeed take a strong stance [for once] against the issue of outsourcing.





Bush has done nothing but prove he doesn't deserve to be president over the last four years

....other than:
  • Act on what was the best information available against a possible threat to the nation/MiddleEast (something BOTH his predecessors should have done/finished)
  • win 2 wars
  • recover from the Clinton/Gore recession into one the fastest-growing American economy in 2 decades
  • give Europe and the rest of the world a complete and total F.U.  Big thumbs up
  • etc




    Are these things really "issues" or are they simply those that get the most press?

    When you get candidates as superficially similar as Bush & Kerry, they tend to be.

    Had someone as colorful/polar as Howard Dean won the Democrat nomination... absolutely none of that sorta bullsh!t would be a factor.


  • User currently offlineJamesag96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 3
    Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 978 times:

    Well put Concorde.

    A race between Dean and Bush would have been interesting.

    I was actually pulling for Lieberman, would have voted for him.



    Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
    User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 970 times:

    win 2 wars..

    He hasn't won either. Despite his claims in his ads, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are "free nations". Both are at war; neither have held any kind of elections (Afghanistan keeps postponing their elections), there is still fighting; both are still very unstable, and Bush doesn't have an exit strategy for either.

    If that's winning, I'd hate to see your idea of losing.

    recover from the Clinton/Gore recession into one the fastest-growing American economy in 2 decades

    One of the biggest fucking lies out there. The economy is still shaky, and growth has slowed way down. The "fastest-growning economy" is still down a million jobs from when he took offiice, and the jobs coming back are not as well-paying as the jobs going out. He's given the green light to corporations to ship as many jobs overseas as they can. He's running record deficits.

    What a big fucking lie.

    give Europe and the rest of the world a complete and total F.U.

    All you RWAK's think it's some great thing to tell the whole world to go fuck itself, simply because they dare to not want an unjustified war. Well, me and the rest of the world say to you clowns "fuck you, right back at you". Because you've made the U.S. a hated, loathed, butt-of-jokes country. I hope you're so proud of that fact.

    And these are the REASONS you give for 4 more years?  Laugh out loud

    Send him to Crawford, and he can be on vacation for good. He's a disaster as president, exepct to clowns like yourself.

    Well put Concorde.

    Well, coming from another RWAK, who doesn't have a clue about what is real and what isn't, I'm not shocked.


    User currently offlineRjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 960 times:

    He hasn't won either.

    Militarily, he has.

    Despite his claims in his ads, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq are "free nations".

    Nobody ever said it can happen overnight. However, to deny that they are on a closer path to freedom than they were 3 years ago is lunacy.

    One of the biggest fucking lies out there.

    I suppose you know more than many economists out there?

    The "fastest-growning economy" is still down a million jobs from when he took offiice

    Economies fluctuate; As you probably know there was a boom under Clinton. But that had very little to do with Clinton. It was bound to collapse one way or the other. In fact, it did start collapsing when Clinton WAS IN OFFICE. So do we blame Clinton? Or maybe we can go back more and blame Reagan for giving us the deficits that Clinton dealt with?

    He's running record deficits.

    Deficits aren't necessarily bad.

    Because you've made the U.S. a hated, loathed, butt-of-jokes country. I hope you're so proud of that fact.

    If you truly think that the Iraq war was the ONLY cause of this US hatred that the world has today, then you are very naive. It has been brewing for years, even under your beloved Clinton who adopted a more unilateralist position, the war in Iraq just brought it to the surface. It can't be dealt with by simply keeping it under the surface.

    He's a disaster as president, exepct to clowns like yourself.

    Come on Alpha; that line can be turned around 100% against you.

    Well, coming from another RWAK, who doesn't have a clue about what is real and what isn't, I'm not shocked.

    I forgot, only you know what is real and isn't, and only you can judge what is right and not right.


    User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
    Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 951 times:

    Reese,
    Cut him some slack. He IS a self-professed expert you know, so how could he possibly be wrong?  Big grin He's a liberal, no matter what he claims. He will get upset, post pictures of his party's symbolic "JACKASS" and try and associate it with you, much the same as a grade school child would do when called a name. Let him ramble, he thinks what he says here will actually make a difference in the election, or on what people believe. Fun to watch, and it takes so little to get them worked up.  Smile


    User currently offlineJasepl From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, RR: 39
    Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 944 times:

    Hmmm, what was I saying about "petty and immature"?

    User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 938 times:

    Jackasses are just that way. JeffM can't help it. He has nothing to say about issues, so he sticks to bad one-liners.

    User currently offlineSpinzels From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 330 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 941 times:

    recover from the Clinton/Gore recession into one the fastest-growing American economy in 2 decades

    That's news to me. On what basis do you make such a statement? The economy is in worse shape than it was under Clinton.

    (1) Payroll data/employment has actually decreased since Bush took office. Source: http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm Among 20th Century Presidents only George Bush and Herbert Hoover presided over economies in which there were fewer jobs at the end of their terms than at the beginning. The Bush Administration itself asserted in its “Economic Report of the President, 2002” that nonfarm payrolls would hit 138 million in 2004. They are currently almost seven million jobs short of that goal. Source http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy03/pdf/2002_erp.pdf (See Page 53).

    (2) Economic Growth was better in every year under Clinton, with the exception of 1995. Source: http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls For most of the Clinton years, economic growth was much, much better than in years 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 (1Q/2Q). Again, this conflicts with the rosy predictions for economic growth made in the “Economic Report of the President, 2002” cited above. 2004/2Q growth was particularly anemic, see: http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/30/news/economy/gdp/

    So what is your basis for saying that this is one of the fastest-growing economies in two decades? Please let me in on your sources this remarkable assertion... Very much Looking forward to your answer!




    I've been to Paradise, but I've never been to me
    User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 928 times:

    So what is your basis for saying that this is one of the fastest-growing economies in two decades?

    Because, for the RWAK's, there's not lie to big to help get Bush re-elected. And the biggest lie of all is that this is a fantastic economy.

    Even though Clinton had a great economy during his tenure, and even had a surplus on the budget, these RWAK's 1. won't give him ANY credit (although give Reagan and Bush credit for their economies, that weren't near as good, by the way), and 2. still try to convince all of us that these massive deficits, massive outsourcings, and net loss of jobs is some great thing for all of us.

    The blind, following the blind.


    User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 907 times:

    Act on what was the best information available against a possible threat to the nation/MiddleEast (something BOTH his predecessors should have done/finished)
    win 2 wars
    recover from the Clinton/Gore recession into one the fastest-growing American economy in 2 decades
    give Europe and the rest of the world a complete and total F.U.


    Thanks for reminding me why I'm not voting for him!  Big thumbs up

    Hmm, lemme see... Clinton = Budget Surplus, Bush = Budget deficit.

    This is somehow Clinton's fault?

    Oh I forgot, Step 3 of the RWAK's flow chart. When all else fails, blame Clinton....It all makes sense now.

    And once again, Spinzels cuts thru all the BS with hard facts and data. Welcome to my respected users list for not engaging in name calling and attacks, just exposing the truth.

    Jeff, I hope you're paying attention. You can learn something from him.

    But I'm sure you'll opt not to.  Big grin

    B


    User currently offlineJasepl From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, RR: 39
    Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 month 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 905 times:

    Militarily, he has.

    Are you sure about that? There was a piece on TV today about how the Americans are holding their own internal military tribunal in Germany because Iraq's not half safe. What kind of a victory is that?


    25 Aviationwiz : Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sancti
    26 Alpha 1 : Don't forget folks, Ken Starr showed tons of respect to the sitting President. Yes, it's appropriate that two guys who waste taxpayers money have such
    27 Post contains images JeffM : "He has nothing to say about issues." Maybe a real issue, but certainly not in response to any garbage like this. Do you really think your making a di
    28 NonRevKing : So Jeff, let me ask you directly. What is your take on the issue? I'd be interested in your thoughts... Exactly... B
    29 Post contains links Spinzels : Even though Clinton had a great economy during his tenure, and even had a surplus on the budget, these RWAK's 1. won't give him ANY credit (although
    30 Spinzels : JeffM: Suggestion: Think you might want to delete your post # 27. It reflects pretty poorly on you and tends to confirm what was said about you in th
    31 Alpha 1 : So Jeff, let me ask you directly. What is your take on the issue? I'd be interested in your thoughts... You need a brain to have thoughts.
    32 JeffM : Brian, I could care less if they protest. I could care less what the Republicans do about it, or what the Democrats think about it. There is nothing y
    33 Post contains images Alpha 1 : If you don't care, JeffM, just shut the hell up. Is that so hard?
    34 NonRevKing : Funny, you seem care enough to insult anyone who doesn't see things like you do. B
    35 Alpha 1 : Well, NRK, since 95% of the world doesn't think like he does, he's gotten quite used to such insults. They come so naturally to him, because HE'S A MI
    36 Post contains images JeffM : Those were insults? Maybe among the boys and girls at your ticket counter.. LOL.... Try harder little one.. You really believe your making a differenc
    37 Post contains images Usairwys757 : Did you actually watch the DNC? All I got out of it was that Kerry will "do things better than Bush". I didn't hear many facts. Gee....thats really su
    38 JeffM : Why don't you spell out the "facts" for us Travis... We have a minute...
    39 Post contains images Usairwys757 : "First, new incentives to revitalize manufacturing. Second, investment in technology and innovation that will create the good-paying jobs of the futur
    40 Post contains images NonRevKing : All I got out of it was that Kerry will "do things better than Bush". Well, that's a start if you ask me. But I'd love to hear Bush's plans for improv
    41 Usairwys757 : And another thing Jeff, come back after the RNC and show me all the facts from Bush's speech. I'm sure there will be tons of them. Granted part of Ker
    42 Post contains images JeffM : Find your own facts... I won't be watching it. I didn't watch the Dems, don't need to watch the Republicans. And I don't care about either party's neg
    43 Alpha 1 : 1. New incentives? (tax break) For those who already don't have a clue what to do with all the money they have lying around. Some incentive. It does s
    44 L-188 : I can't say I blame the republicans for being cautions. It is well documented that the left wing tends to much more violent Just look at the WTO Riots
    45 Aloha717200 : Disrespect? Since when did actually standing up and saying what you think about something qualify as disrespect? Sig heil! Sig heil!
    46 Aviationwiz : I can't say I blame the republicans for being cautions. Of course they are being cautious, however, that's not the issue. The issue is that they inten
    47 JeffM : "..we still have the constitution you all know." ..which gives both sides the right to say what they want... You do remember that little part right?
    48 L-188 : we still have the constitution you all know. And what part of the constituion allows physical violence and vandelism to be a lawful way to express tho
    Top Of Page
    Forum Index

    This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

    Printer friendly format

    Similar topics:More similar topics...
    Lebanon Opposition Plans Protest posted Thu Nov 30 2006 13:54:06 by Cedars747
    1 Week Of Democratic Rule- What Say You? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 00:19:39 by GuitrThree
    Democratic Doublespeak posted Tue Oct 31 2006 21:18:40 by AerospaceFan
    Muslim Protestors /Foreign Flags posted Wed Sep 20 2006 18:57:54 by BigOrange
    Praise For Democratic Congressman's Campaign posted Sun Sep 17 2006 20:53:56 by AerospaceFan
    The RNC Invades Cleveland! posted Tue Aug 22 2006 21:31:56 by Falcon84
    Protestors Break And Enter Usaf Plane In Scotland. posted Mon Aug 7 2006 07:20:05 by Thom@s
    Your Weekend Plans posted Fri Aug 4 2006 16:31:56 by FutureSDPDcop
    Big 30 Coming Soon: Need Plans posted Thu Jul 20 2006 16:41:49 by Mt99
    Troop Redeployment Plans posted Sun Jun 25 2006 12:28:43 by ANCFlyer