Republican National Convention

[Event_Horizon]

Well, the Republican National Convention has started tonight. John McCain already spoke and Mayor Rudy Giuliani is next. McCain made a remark about Michael Moore (who is in attendance, by the way) which drew out some incredible negative emotion from the delegates in attendace. Also there was a heart felt tribute to 9-11 with an incredible rendition of "Amazing Grace". Arnold is also due up later in the week and I can't wait to here from him.

Well I guess my point is that this convention and the speakers that represent it make me proud to be a republican and an American.

I realize that my position is not the most popular around here, but I guess it needs to be said....

FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[G.K Zhukov]

Watching it makes me wanna puke.

[Apothos]

Just think what that administration will get up to without having to worry about re-election in four more years.

Just out of curiosity, has either party ever chosen to use a candidate other than the President of the time even though he could constitutionally go for another four years?

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Apothos

Just think what that administration will get up to without having to worry about re-election in four more years.

Just out of curiosity, has either party ever chosen to use a candidate other than the President of the time even though he could constitutionally go for another four years?

Well, two 4 year term limits for American presidents did not become law until 1947. Before then it was like an unwritten law that presidents served for only a max of two terms. But Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 30's and 40's actually served three terms and was elected to a fourth term before he died in office. After that an ammedment was passed limiting the president to only two terms.

So with the two term limit being a relatively new law I do not think that either party has nominated a different candidate other than the incumbent. I am not positive on this though.

[Sandsnake]

it's happened 5 times. Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Chester A. Arthur

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

it's happened 5 times. Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Chester A. Arthur

Ahh there we go, thank you Sandsnake.

[Gunn3r]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

I realize that my position is not the most popular around here, but I guess it needs to be said....

FOUR MORE YEARS OF WAR, INJUSTICES, RACISM, FASCISM, VIOLATED HUMANS RIGHTS, LIES, DISCRIMINATION & FORBIDDING ABORTION, NO GAY RIGHTS, BLINDED NATIONALISM AND PATRIOTISM, AND OF MCDONALD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Event_Horizon]

Ahh Gunn3r, I did not say that... although it is humorous....

[Sandsnake]

ignore gunn3r. everyone else does.

[IncubusGod]

Well I hope for a large meteorite to land and crush the entire venue, thereby renewing my faith in the persistance of good in this world.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Well I guess my point is that this convention and the speakers that represent it make me proud to be a republican and an American.

What have they said they has made you proud in particular?

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

What have they said they has made you proud in particular?

I think it went something like this:

"We shall destroy all who stand in our way! Rag-heads retreat! Liberals leave! Koreans kiss our ass! Environment evacuate!
Our leader is great, all hail The Bush!
Any dessent is un-American!
Obey or your a threat to national security!
Other countries do as we wish or we will cut you like we cut spending on Education."


"Cheny: My daughters a lesbian! I can't be right wing, all lesbians vote for us!"
"Some convention go-ers: Burn the lesbians!"
"Other convention go-ers: No need, they're going to Hell anyway!"
"Everyone: Hooray!"

Would bring a tear to the eye of any self respecting right wing "true-American"

[wu_trax]

i also hope bush wins.

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

i also hope bush wins.

So you want the world to go to hell in a handbasket then?

****ing americans.

[NEWSBOT3]

same situation the uk has , the other guy looks like a worse option.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

So you want the world to go to hell in a handbasket then?

****ing americans.

hell, im no american. you are the first ever to think so.
point a: it would be good for european integration. the common-enemy approach should work, (worked fine here in 1870/71, for europe its a bit more complicated, and we have to skip the war-part, but still)
point b: if we have crappy politicians, so should they have. equals it out a little.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

hell, im no american. you are the first ever to think so.
point a: it would be good for european integration. the common-enemy approach should work, (worked fine here in 1870/71, for europe its a bit more complicated, and we have to skip the war-part, but still)
point b: if we have crappy politicians, so should they have. equals it out a little.

yeh but its bad for britain, because as things stand that poodle dog (blair) will probably get re-elected as there are no other viable choices. Our nation will get further seperated from the Europeans, our nation will continue to be a lapdog of american policies, and after the amount of destruction the UK and the USA have caused already just imagine what they will do in Bushes last term, we'll all be singing "Rule America, America rules the way, Britain never ever shall disobey"

[JonnyBGood]

Here's something with a vague point for you to complain about guys! (I'm aware the original poster is pro-bush heh).

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

hell, im no american. you are the first ever to think so.

It was more a general statement than me calling you a ****ing american.

[LHC]

Please close this thread.

[IncubusGod]

Why?

[Rumad]

I always find teh party conventions to be slightly mundane and to an extent samey.

They alwyas follow the same format and very few people actually take notice of them. Some day parties will realise that far more can be done to assist their campaigns. I wait for the day when creative people get more involved with teh layout and content.

[Lupin]

will that much change if Kerry has the power?

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by Lupin

will that much change if Kerry has the power?

How much worse can he be than the Republican Junta that is there now? (I know that's tempting fate..but..)

I mean, clearly America would be heading into the unknown, but it's better, in my opinon, than the way it's heading now with a non-intellectual, puppet, moron, closed mineded, world ingnorent, war mongering, daddy loving cock at the helm.

[NEWSBOT3]

and as soon as kerry gets in he'll be exactly the same.

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

and as soon as kerry gets in he'll be exactly the same.

He might be, he might not.

We know how Bush and Cheney will be. There's little chance Kerry and Edwards will be worse.

[NEWSBOT3]

and little change they'll be better either.

governments are all the same brand of cock

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

governments are all the same brand of cock

Just a different flavour. And I for one am sick of the current flavour of cock in the White House.

[Dante Hicks]

It's debatable which side would be "best". Arguably, another term of Bush would strengthen opposition groups inside the US or it could lead to people losing hope. If Kerry wins, where will all the Punkvoter.com and their ilk go? Will their work be done? Will everyone go back to being apathetic? It's not like the problems will be solved.

I will watch the elections with mild interest, but I don't really care who wins tbh. I can see upsides for either side.

[Sandsnake]

It's also easy for an outsider to go "HAY GUYS!@ I SOOOO HATE BUSH! LOOL I R SO CLEVER! DID YUO NO HE LOOKS LIKE A MONKEE?" or something.

OTOH, as an american, it's hard for anyone who isn't polarized on either end of "****ing stupid" to decide between Mr Neo-Con and Mr Windblows-Cocksucker.

Whether I agree with Bush or not, I know he'll do what he thinks is the right thing and in this, he's predictable. On the other hand, Kerry can only be counted on doing whatever seems popular at the moment and then reversing positions when it's opportune to do so.

Me? I'm voting for Barbie.

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by Sandsnake

It's also easy for an outsider to go "HAY GUYS!@ I SOOOO HATE BUSH! LOOL I R SO CLEVER! DID YUO NO HE LOOKS LIKE A MONKEE?" or something.

OTOH, as an american, it's hard for anyone who isn't polarized on either end of "****ing stupid" to decide between Mr Neo-Con and Mr Windblows-Cocksucker.

Whether I agree with Bush or not, I know he'll do what he thinks is the right thing and in this, he's predictable. On the other hand, Kerry can only be counted on doing whatever seems popular at the moment and then reversing positions when it's opportune to do so.

Me? I'm voting for Barbie.

You have to understand that, as outsiders, we don't care about US internal policies. What we care about is when the U.S. decides to go ape-shit and **** the world up for its own selfish gains. Thats why we all go "HAY GUYS!@ I SOOOO HATE BUSH! LOOL I R SO CLEVER! DID YUO NO HE LOOKS LIKE A MONKEE?"
Mainly because that retard has caused more problems in the world than any "good" he's done. Him and his "advisors", his father, his puppet masters and his" The Bible: On Tape" (well he said himself he doesn't read, how then does he manage to find "words of wisdom" in the Bible)

I agree that Kerry seems like a dick. But from what we see, he seems less of a dick than Bush. It's the lesser of two evils.

Clearly your political system is shot to hell since you can only vote for either "Vanilla" or "Vanilla with Sprinkles".

Personally, I would only hope Kerry gets in so that America doesn't suffer an even worse reputation worldwide, possibly resulting in something truly awful happening to the U.S.

[Tactitus]

I'd take a right-wing nutjob like Bush over an unprincipled opportunist like Kerry in a New York minute, but I'll probably be voting Libertarian again.

[Sandsnake]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I'd take a right-wing nutjob like Bush over an unprincipled opportunist like Kerry in a New York minute, but I'll probably be voting Libertarian again.

BARBIE FOR PRESIDENT!@#!!!

Ps. I agree.

PSS. World opinion isn't everything, Icey. Sure, it's nice to have, but we have a whole crapload of our own problems and Kerry will only do what he thinks is best for his career, not what he thinks is best for the country.

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I'd take a right-wing nutjob like Bush over an unprincipled opportunist like Kerry in a New York minute, but I'll probably be voting Libertarian again.

You lot should lobby for an entry to be put on the ballot so it'd look like this:

1. George W. Bush
2. John Kerry
3. Random No Hope Guy
4. **** YOU!

I know what option I'd pick.

[Event_Horizon]

Ok. Firstly, I know this has probably been discussed close to a million times, and secondly I realize I am vastly out numbered by you fiends and probably out classed in the art of debate as well. I shall still stubbornly try to make a few quick points.

First off being that most people in this forum are against the Bush administration and live in a different country, you're arguments are most likely with his foreign policy.

FIRST ISSUE- War in Afghanistan.

I personally don't see how anybody could argue with America for attacking Afghanistan. They were harboring the group that attacked America!! When given the option to give up Al Qaeda they refused and then were attacked and defeated. Not too long ago I watched a show on TV that was hosted by a British journalist/historian who traveled to Afghanistan and gave an objective view on the country. According to this documentary the Taliban regime was incredibly surpressive. They destroyed most of the Afghan's beautiful art work and outlawed almost all forms of entertainment. Women were also severely persecuted under the regime.

After the Taliban regime was defeated the country split up into factions across the entire country. While this form of government is by no means ideal, I think there is a real effort on the part of the Americans and the EUROPEANS that are there to try form a democratic government there. For me personally I do not see how anybody could fault the US for their situation in Afghanistan.

SECOND ISSUE- War in Iraq

Now, this is clearly the main proponent of anti-BUSH rhetoric. I do see how people can draw sides on the issue of the Iraq War. I for one did not like how the beginning was handled with Bush not getting more World Support. I also think he should've worked through the UN inspectors some more. But I can understand his dilemma. Here it is:

American, British, Russian, and some Arab intelligence all tell him that Sadamm defintely has weapons of mass destruction. Bush is then faced with two options, either sanction him but let him keep these weapons or tell him to give up the weapons and if he doesn't then forcefully take them. Lets say that a year after 9/11 America is attacked again by terrorists and it is determined that the terrorists got the weapons from Iraq. Right there Bush would be done. He would be considered a failure and the ultimate NON- protector of the US. According to the intelligence he had no choice but to go into Iraq. I truly do believe that when it is all said and done Iraq WILL come out a free and democratic country. That is just the nature of the path of the world. As we progress more and more countries give up their dictatorships, monarchies, and repressive forms of government and move towards some form of rule by the people.

In conclusion, America WILL do what is best for her. I do not like leaving out European allies. I do not despise the French and Germans as most conservative groups would try and get you to believe. But in the end America will have to rule how she sees fit.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

I personally don't see how anybody could argue with America for attacking Afghanistan. They were harboring the group that attacked America!! When given the option to give up Al Qaeda they refused and then were attacked and defeated.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page...et_taliban.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1125339.htm

Pretty much the only thing the Taliban refused to do was directly hand over Bin Laden to the US. Various offers to try him in Afghanistan, a third party country or the Hague were all reportedly (not being present I'm unable to verify their authenticity but the lack of counter-claims is fairly deafening in it's silence).

I truly do believe that when it is all said and done Iraq WILL come out a free and democratic country.

That's a fairly groundless opinion seeing as support for fundamentalist Islamic rule isn't exactly declining in Iraq.

But in the end America will have to rule how she sees fit.

I hope you mean rule your own country and not the world.


PS I supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in principle. I do however disagree with the way the campaigns were conducted, and the aftermath.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Ok. Firstly, I know this has probably been discussed close to a million times, and secondly I realize I am vastly out numbered by you fiends and probably out classed in the art of debate as well. I shall still stubbornly try to make a few quick points.

First off being that most people in this forum are against the Bush administration and live in a different country, you're arguments are most likely with his foreign policy.

FIRST ISSUE- War in Afghanistan.

I personally don't see how anybody could argue with America for attacking Afghanistan. They were harboring the group that attacked America!! When given the option to give up Al Qaeda they refused and then were attacked and defeated. Not too long ago I watched a show on TV that was hosted by a British journalist/historian who traveled to Afghanistan and gave an objective view on the country. According to this documentary the Taliban regime was incredibly surpressive. They destroyed most of the Afghan's beautiful art work and outlawed almost all forms of entertainment. Women were also severely persecuted under the regime.

After the Taliban regime was defeated the country split up into factions across the entire country. While this form of government is by no means ideal, I think there is a real effort on the part of the Americans and the EUROPEANS that are there to try form a democratic government there. For me personally I do not see how anybody could fault the US for their situation in Afghanistan.

im sick of talking about iraq, but i say a few words about afganistan:
not ideal??? they grow even more drugs than before, the provinces are ruled by some warlords who dont give a damn about womens rights or democracy or whatever values we have. that kazai-guy has no power whatsoever. there is no way the whole thing can be fixed. sooner or later there will be a new civil war and noone will care. yes, we sent troops there but even if we would 50,000 instead of 5,000 soldiers it still wouldnt be enough. the us would have had enough manpower to make this work, but instead of fixing one country first bush goes right on and invades another one for no reason whatsoever. the only reason for that war was to satisfy the blood-thrist of the general public. they didnt have any plan on what to do after the war. then the war was over and bush did the same crap again and invade yet another country without an idea of what to do.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

they grow even more drugs than before

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/07/ret.us.taliban/
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page...et_taliban.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1125339.htm

Pretty much the only thing the Taliban refused to do was directly hand over Bin Laden to the US. Various offers to try him in Afghanistan, a third party country or the Hague were all reportedly (not being present I'm unable to verify their authenticity but the lack of counter-claims is fairly deafening in it's silence).
That's a fairly groundless opinion seeing as support for fundamentalist Islamic rule isn't exactly declining in Iraq.

I hope you mean rule your own country and not the world.


PS I supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in principle. I do however disagree with the way the campaigns were conducted, and the aftermath.

On your first point, I read the news articles and came to this conclusion: America was attacked, she should deal with bin laden how she sees fit. There are not conditions by which we have to comply with the Taliban. There is no negotiating. Simply hand him over and that is it. The Taliban wanted to "try him". What a joke. Obviously if they could "try him" they could find him. If they could find him, then they could hand him over to us...

On your next point, since I am at college and am soon to be late for class i will argue against your point using idealogy and not news stories and such that I would have to hunt around and find. As I said before, as most countries become more modernized and educated they naturally get directed to a rule by the people of some sort. I think that the unrest in Iraq is caused by the few and that most Iraqi citizens would prefer a democratic society. The problem with Iraq is that it is split up into different cultural factions and all these factions hate each other. The only way to conceivably appease everybody is to a have free country. I f you make it Islamist then the Sunni's, Shiites, and Christians (a small minority, but present none the less) will fight against each other.

And yes I meant rule herself and of course not the world. Sorry for the shit response but I truly am in a hurry...

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

On your first point, I read the news articles and came to this conclusion: America was attacked, she should deal with bin laden how she sees fit. There are not conditions by which we have to comply with the Taliban. There is no negotiating. Simply hand him over and that is it. The Taliban wanted to "try him". What a joke. Obviously if they could "try him" they could find him. If they could find him, then they could hand him over to us...

Why should they hand him over solely to you? I'm sure he's committed a number of other crimes against various countries, do they have any less right to expect him to stand trial in their country? At the end of World War Two the Nazis responsible for war crimes were not prosecuted by separate countries according to how able they were to seize each individual. Why is an international court not acceptable? As well as this maybe the taliban meant they would co-operate with the US in finding Bin Laden if they accepted the other proposals? If you support the idea of national sovereignty there are always conditions by which you have to comply when dealing with other countries.

On your next point, since I am at college and am soon to be late for class i will argue against your point using idealogy and not news stories and such that I would have to hunt around and find.

Heh.

As I said before, as most countries become more modernized and educated they naturally get directed to a rule by the people of some sort. I think that the unrest in Iraq is caused by the few and that most Iraqi citizens would prefer a democratic society. The problem with Iraq is that it is split up into different cultural factions and all these factions hate each other. The only way to conceivably appease everybody is to a have free country. I f you make it Islamist then the Sunni's, Shiites, and Christians (a small minority, but present none the less) will fight against each other.

Iraq isn't becoming more modernized and educated at the minute though. Instead the infrastructure of huge areas of the country is collapsing. Most Iraqis would probably prefer a democratic society to a totalitarian one. However that's simplifying the problem, would they prefer the current chaos to a firm, even harsh, ruling hand? I'm unsure on this point. How are you going to have a free country if the numbers supporting this "free" system of rule are not sufficient to maintain internal stability? Is Iraq tending towards a more democratic form of government at the moment? I'd say yes. However could this tendency have been achieved at the same level, or perhaps a higher level, in other ways without the loss of human life seen, or the resulting social problems? This is why I said I agreed in principle with the idea of removing both the Taliban and Saddam, but disagreed with how these courses of action were pursued.

PS Enjoy your class!

[queball]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Lets say that a year after 9/11 America is attacked again by terrorists and it is determined that the terrorists got the weapons from Iraq.

A year after 9/11 would be before the invasion of Iraq.

So do you place any responsibility for the failure of intelligence on the administration? It is vital to get the responsibility right and I'd agree that however desperate it sounds, they have to go with what they're told. But it's extremely suspicious when politicians don't lose anything personally by making decisions that cause chaos. War just doesn't seem to be so close to the Democrats' hearts and I think it's better to have the political incentives right than to try and vote in idealists. Some of the arguments were just so incredibly dumb. Saddam in league with al-Queda when they're known to be enemies?

You seem to couple apologising for failures of intelligence with "hey, look on the bright side, Iraq is free now!" as if justification isn't important which is very suspicious. If there was correct intelligence instead, so no reports of WMD, would you have supported the war or not? I wouldn't because I think it would have been much cheaper to leave Saddam's regime to fall apart naturally. It might sound materialistic but I think even if you made Iraq freer, you made Americans $130 billion less free and it wasn't worth it. And I don't think Iraq is doing well at all (at least Saddam was secular etc). So I don't see what good principles or integrity have done if they do exist.

[Phang]

what's happened in both Iraq and Afghanistan is that countries which operated well, if under extreme totalitarianism, are now being left completely to all the religious lunatics to form war parties. in Iraq under Saddam, the only time you really needed to worry was if you were a Kurd, and even then they were largely left alone if they kept to themselves and iirc the last purge of any size was pre-Gulf War. Now, you have Sadr-esque Sunni and Shi'ite groups rampaging around the country killing the kurds and each other, you have something which is essentially a military junta, you have the official reintroduction of the death penalty for potentially any crime, basic amenities STILL haven't been restored, and in general the country has gone to shit when previously it was comparatively progressive. The situation is the same in Afghanistan. And having destabilised these countries, the Americans are still feeling like their victims. Of what?

[Event_Horizon]

First to Johnny B Good on the issue of why the Taliban had to hand Bin Laden over to the US and not give him a international trial. My main reason would be that no other nation was actively asking for his head. If they were, than they would've gone to the Taliban and made a big deal about it. But until 9/11 everybody was just grand, and then when it happened to the US we are expected to play by international rules when nobody even cared before 9/11? The Nazi's were actively sought by many, many nations directly after WW2 and their international trial seems to be the correct line.

Secondly to Phang and queball, I do understand your arguments with Iraq and Afghanistan and agree with some of it. As I have previously said i do think that Bush handle Iraq wrongly and in handling Iraq wrongly it caused Afghanistan to screw up a little more. Bush has even admitted that he miscalculated the rebuilding process of Iraq. I guess he and his administration did not fully realize the true fragmentation of Iraq. This is no excuse, but it is a reason. I still think that in the end (another words a couple of years) Iraq will be better off without Sadamm for themselves and for the rest of the world. As for the casualties of both wars, if you look at them proportionally the amount of people that have died is very very small. Now, I am not saying that it is insignificant, but there is more of an outcry against the few that have died in the American wars (Afgan and Iraq) than the absolute genocide that is going on in the Sudan!!! This fact leads me to think that there is a "dislike" of America already present and the Iraq war is just the situation to justify the already inherent dislike.

I guess the main reason why I support Bush is because he is tough on terrorsims and does have a core of values. He truly believes that what he is doing is best for the country. Sure he has made mistakes, but he is the first world leader to truly start to put pressure on the terrorists. I mean just recently chechen(sp?) terrorists blew up two Russian airplanes. Iraqi terrorists took French journalists hostage because of the new French law having to do with clothing in schools. I beleive that the terrorists must be dealt with strictly. So while Bush may have made some mistakes I still think his good ( being tough on terrorism and having a core value to the country) outweighs his bad (not being patient enough in some situations).

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

First to Johnny B Good on the issue of why the Taliban had to hand Bin Laden over to the US and not give him a international trial. My main reason would be that no other nation was actively asking for his head. If they were, than they would've gone to the Taliban and made a big deal about it. But until 9/11 everybody was just grand, and then when it happened to the US we are expected to play by international rules when nobody even cared before 9/11? The Nazi's were actively sought by many, many nations directly after WW2 and their international trial seems to be the correct line.

My point was that international trials are currently the accepted method of trying "war criminals". Milosevic isn't being tried in Bosnia, he's being tried in the Hague. You are always expected to play by international rules if you expect the global community to accept, and respect, the concept of national sovereignty (a rather core value of the US judging by it's disdain towards some international institutions).

Now, I am not saying that it is insignificant, but there is more of an outcry against the few that have died in the American wars (Afgan and Iraq) than the absolute genocide that is going on in the Sudan!!!

This is due to the fact most people know who to complain to in the Iraq scenario. Do you know who is , or which main identifiable parties are, responsible for the atrocities in the Sudan? I certainly don't, and even if I did how could I make my displeasure known in an even vaguely meaningful way?

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

i watched guilliani's speech, i like the way he slipped in the bit about 'african christians being slaughtered in the sudan'

[acropolis]

oj was innocent

[JonnyBGood]

Acwopolis.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Acwopolis.

Elmew Fudd

[Phang]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This is due to the fact most people know who to complain to in the Iraq scenario. Do you know who is , or which main identifiable parties are, responsible for the atrocities in the Sudan? I certainly don't, and even if I did how could I make my displeasure known in an even vaguely meaningful way?

The Arabic, Islamic government and the Jinjawid militia. However, these groups are not expected to behave responsibly. And we didn't elect them either. And nobody is defending them.

[KoeN]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Watching it makes me wanna puke.

same, although giuliani amused me somehow.