The Republican Convention

[Bond]

http://www.gopconvention.com/nycimages/header/logo.gifhttp://www.gopconvention.com/nycimages/header/theme.gif

Here is the primetime lineup:

Monday, August 30, 2004
- Mayor Michael Bloomberg
- Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani
- Senator John McCain (R-AZ)

We will pay tribute to the courage of a nation that has seen unprecedented challenges over the last three and a half years and the president who led the nation through these historic times. Program speaker former Mayor Rudy Giuliani will speak to the courage of the American people, seen through the acts of bravery of a city that saw tragedy and great acts of heroism on September 11, 2001. John McCain will talk about the courage of our men and women in the military and the commander in chief who has led with clarity and conviction in the War on Terror.

Tuesday, August 31, 2004
- First Lady Laura Bush
- Secretary of Education Rod Paige
- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

The Republican National Convention will focus on the compassion of the American people and the uniquely American belief that our best days lie ahead. President Bush's optimistic stewardship of the nation will be the focus when Mrs. Bush addresses the nation with personal insights into the president's three and half years in office. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will tell his personal story of living the American Dream and spreading the party's message of compassion and hope.

Wednesday, September 1, 2004
- Mrs. Lynne Cheney
- Vice President Dick Cheney
- Senator Zell Miller (D-GA)

U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA), will deliver the convention's keynote address. Sen. Miller will speak about the land of opportunity created by President Bush's pro-growth, pro-American worker, pro-American entrepreneur agenda. In 1992, Sen. Miller was selected by President Bill Clinton to deliver the keynote address at the Democrat National Convention. A dozen years later, Sen. Miller will deliver the keynote address for President George W. Bush, who he describes as the "right man" to lead our nation in these times. Vice President Cheney will be the featured speaker on Wednesday. He will speak to the administration's record of creating opportunity for all Americans and the president's vision for spreading freedom around the world to ensure our safety at home.

Thursday, September 2, 2004
- Governor George Pataki
- President George W. Bush

Tonight President George W. Bush will lay out his vision for the next four years - a vision that will help build a safer world and a more hopeful America. President Bush will build on his record of accomplishment with new and innovative ideas to spread opportunity and prosperity to all corners of our country. Drawing inspiration from the courage and compassion of all Americans, the president will talk about his plan for building a safer world by spreading freedom around the globe.

[Crono]

I'll be watching it as much as possible.

[The Germanator]

I'm interested to see what those crazy protesters do.

[Professor S]

I want to see 3 speakers: Swarzenegger, McCain and Zell Miller who is a HUGE steal by the Republican party and a great speaker.

[Jonbo298]

Who's gonna be harder to understand? Bush or Schwarzenegger? :p

It's a joke. Don't take it literally

[Dylflon]

Don't they make you do some sort of loyalty oath before going in? That seems weird to me.

[Acebot44]

I'm interested to see what those crazy protesters do.

Funny story.

My brother and a couple of his buddy's went up to Santa Barbara on Friday to stay at some chicks house for the weekend. I find out that today, as they were driving around the city, they came upon an anti-bush shenanagan. Being the people they are, the group decided to make a sign which said something along these lines, "Vote Bush, our Hero! Man of the Millenium" and joined the crowd :p

Needless to say, the protesters got suuuper pissed and "almost killed" them. One 60 year oldish man comes up to my bro and pushes him, my bro comes back with something like, "what the ****, bitch!?" and a cop comes and arrests the old dude. Soooo funnnay :D

[mickydaniels]

This convention has been boring and almost unwatchable at times. Especially retarded has been the segments where the music would be playing and, like on the first night, Dick Cheney and his wife were introduced to everyone as they went and found their seats. Just to find seats, wow. I just never get the feeling that anyone was going to say anything memorable or special. Like last night with Mr. Rod Paige, Elizabeth Dole and some black guy who was Lt. Governor from Maryland, just gave some dry speeches, and even though there were some good parts, their tones were so distant and seemed so rehearsed and corny.

[Professor S]

I really likewd the Lt. Governor's speech. It wasn't exactly Mayor Guiliani's great speech, but it was pretty good and hit on a lot of the points where I disassociate myself from more liberal values. Swarzenegger's was pretty good and entertaining.

Most conventions are boring for the most part. There is a lot of down time where specifics are ironed out and roll call is taken. Tonight will be good, though. Zell Miller is a great speaker.

[Dylflon]

I thought it was funny that Michael Moore was there.

Go Mike! Rouse that rabble!

[Classic Rocker]

Do they always have these conventions or are they once in awhlile? In the past presidental elections while I was alive, I don't remember conventions like these.

[Fox 6]

I think they do them before an election.

[Jonbo298]

Economic Girlie-Man :unsure:

[Professor S]

The girlie-man remark was more in response to all the reduculous criticism he's received for another girlie-man remark he made about trying to make hard changes in the Californian economy. People have even gone so far as to call him a homophobe and anti-gay, when in fact he's probably one of the most moderate republicans and for gay rights as part of his platform (I'm not positive about this, but its what I heard).

[Bond]

Wow, what an awesome convention. All of the primetime speeches were great: McCain, Giuliani, Arnold, Zell Miller, and President Bush.

Part of Arnold's speech:

"If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government...then you are a Republican! If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group... then you are a Republican! If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does... then you are a Republican! If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children ... then you are a Republican! If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world ... then you are a Republican! And, ladies and gentlemen ...if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism ... then you are a Republican!"

[Dylflon]

How was Zell's speach great? He was freaking insane. Not to mention after his speech he told that guy from the Hardball show that he wished he could challenge him to a duel. Do you really want this guy representing your party?

[Jonbo298]

Now Now Dylflon...*goes quiet for a few seconds* I challenge you to a duel!

[Typhoid]

Is Zell Miller not a registered Democrat?


And he said something about having respect for the men and women in uniform, how they are higher above other people because they are defending America and stuff. ( talking about the soldiers.) But was Kerry not in the Vietnam war?

I kind of think the political system in the US is all messed up.

You only have 2 main parties.

2 Parties cant speak for the majority of a country, so you get these severe arguments all the time. And everything is either "Democrat" or "Republican" or "Liberal". It seems that they only want to help the people who back them. And im talking every party.


EDIT: Oops, i didnt mean to quote that...no idea how i didnt notice.

[Bond]

Arnold is a Republican, what are you talking about?

[Professor S]

How was Zell's speach great? He was freaking insane. Not to mention after his speech he told that guy from the Hardball show that he wished he could challenge him to a duel. Do you really want this guy representing your party?

Zell's speech was great because he had the most impassioned speech and he was a member of the opposing party who spoke for Clinton just 12 years earlier. You can also ignore every point he made about Kerry's voting record if you like by talking about him being "insane", but then you're just grabbing at straws and looking for something to criticize because you realize the points he made were correct. In essence he showed how Kerry pretty much votes and supports anything he thinks is popular at the time.

Case in point: Kerry has said time and time again how he would have had the US miltary have better equipment and how every should have had body armor... yet he's voted against almost every single defense spending initiative while a Congressman and against body armor in particular. You can't have it both ways.

I thought Bush was in trouble before the conventions, but between the Republican convention and Edward's borderline silly "Two America's" speech that turned off a lot of moderates, I think this election won't even be that close.

As for challenging for a duel, I think we all know he was using hyperbole to drive a point home. Don't try and make it into something that its not.

[Typhoid]

But in a sense, cant you just omit, or give less credability what he said?

Because hes a Democrat, yet he stood there like a Republican saying Democrats are wrong and Republicans are better. And you say Kerry flip-flops.

[Jonbo298]

I think Arnold's one-liners and odd choice of words was borderline silly also :D

[Classic Rocker]

Political parites have been blown way out of proportion. It does nothing but divide the country. It has some benfits, but the whole Republican vs Democrat thing has gone far enough. None of these candiates are talking about bringing major changes. They just want there moment of the limelight. I want results. I want action to be taken. I don't care about policy. Lets just do what we need to do to ensure our nation succeeds.

Just my rant.

[Crono]

Political parites have been blown way out of proportion. It does nothing but divide the country. It has some benfits, but the whole Republican vs Democrat thing has gone far enough. None of these candiates are talking about bringing major changes. They just want there moment of the limelight. I want results. I want action to be taken. I don't care about policy. Lets just do what we need to do to ensure our nation succeeds.

Just my rant.


Unfortunately, a very small amount of politicians think that way. Remember... politics is just a game.

[Jonbo298]

Your right about parties not focusing on the intended things. I hate hearing both parties complain about X person's military history. Who really gives a ****? I don't care about a candidates military history, I care about what he wants to do for the country and his issues/ideas that WILL matter to me. I don't care if Bush supposedly dodged the military or that Kerry suposedly wasn't in Vietnam. Do any of those things matter to whats happening today or in the future? no

[Typhoid]

Its a penis waving competition.

Its all one upsmanship, thats all they are doing.

They arnt adressing issues, but they are tarnishing eachothers reputation to heighten themselves.

They get to issues time and time again, but then it deterriorates into John Kerry's Purple hearts, or Bush not going to Vietnam.

I would have respect for whoever just rom this point on dopesnt tarnish the reputation of the other candidate. That would get my vote.

But I think the Republicans are getting too harsh on Kerry. Way too harsh. Politics shouldnt be about who did what and when, it should be about whos doing what and how.

[Professor S]

But I think the Republicans are getting too harsh on Kerry. Way too harsh. Politics shouldnt be about who did what and when, it should be about whos doing what and how.

I think thats a double standard. The Democrats have been just as harsh against Bush, except during their convention, and have received no criticism for it. When the Republicans do the same thing, they are reamed a new a-hole for it. Its the same thing with the 527 advertisement issue.

And it should be about BOTH who did what when and what how. What a politician did in the past is the ONLY device you can use to measure what he will do in the future. Based on that evidence, Kerry has little credibility on the anti-terrorism stances he has claimed now and it is a VERY valid argument to bring up in a campaign or debate.

As for your points about Zell Miller, he believes he isn;t wishy washy at all, but that the Democratic party has abandoned HIM, and if you look at modern political history he has a point. If you look at the platform that JFK ran on, he appears much more of a moderate Republican by today's standards than a Democrat.

[Typhoid]

more of a moderate Republican by today's standards than a Democrat

Then why is Zell Miller not a registered Republican?


What a politician did in the past is the ONLY device you can use to measure what he will do in the future


How so?

Kerry went to war...so that means what? How can you tell what he did in the past as reference to the future?

Bush didnt go to Vietnam, so how can you judge how he will act by what he did and didnt do?

People change, they grow up and get more mature and get different views on things.


he believes he isn;t wishy washy at all

Nor does Kerry, yet hes pegged as a flip-flopper. Imagine that.

The Democrats have been just as harsh against Bush, except during their convention, and have received no criticism for it

All right then. Name all the slander campaigns that the democrats have put against Bush.

I havent seen one commercial about things saying how Bush didnt go to Vietnam, but i did see the one aimed at Kerry.

I dont see democrats constantly slandering Bush's war record, and things like that, as the republicans do to Kerry.

And good on the Democrats for not using the chance to publicly slander the Republicans during the DNC.

Did you ever stop to think that the Republicans get so much heat for saying **** about Kerry, because they did it during the RNC.

Arnt the conventions supposed to be about your issues, your points, what would make the country better if you were in office?

I never knew it was about slander, lies, deciet, propoganda and name calling.

[dropCGCF]

Its a penis waving competition.


That's the worst and most true thing i've ever heard.

[Professor S]

Then why is Zell Miller not a registered Republican?

He refuses as he is still domestically pretty liberal and he does not feel he is doing his party a service by abandoning it to the far left. Its his goal to try and bring it back to the Democratic Party of old.

How so?

Kerry went to war...so that means what? How can you tell what he did in the past as reference to the future?

Bush didnt go to Vietnam, so how can you judge how he will act by what he did and didnt do?

People change, they grow up and get more mature and get different views on things.

I was referring to Kerry's voting record, not his war service, which I respect. You judge a politician by what he does, not by what he says he will do. And I will remind you of a direct quote from Senator Kerry.

"I voted for the war, until I voted against it."

All right then. Name all the slander campaigns that the democrats have put against Bush.

I havent seen one commercial about things saying how Bush didnt go to Vietnam, but i did see the one aimed at Kerry

I dont see democrats constantly slandering Bush's war record, and things like that, as the republicans do to Kerry.

That was not by the Republican party, but by a 527 called the Swift Boat Veteran's For Truth (who have come out in support of democrats in the past, by the way). Much like the Democratic party has 527's such as MoveOn.org that are "not associated" with the party, yet accused President Bush of poisoning pregnant women at one point.

If you are going to associate Swift Boat with the Republican Party, you have to associate MoveOn.org with the democrats.

Also, I don't believe anyone slandered Kerry's war record at the Republican convention once. In fact, I believe most of the speakers spoke very highly of his record.

And good on the Democrats for not using the chance to publicly slander the Republicans during the DNC.

Nor did the Republicans. The Republicans went after Kerry's VOTING RECORD, not war record, which is a completely valid campaign issue which most people were probably not aware of.

Did you ever stop to think that the Republicans get so much heat for saying **** about Kerry, because they did it during the RNC.

Did you ever think they got so much **** because of the liberal media defending their poster boy and reaching fro straws when all of the inconsistencies in Kerry's voting record were exposed? Its better to change the subject than actually discuss the issues that were brought up.

Arnt the conventions supposed to be about your issues, your points, what would make the country better if you were in office?

Voting record IS AN ISSUE, and is one of the biggest differences between Bush and Kerry. You might not like Bush, but at least you know what he stands for and what his plans are for the country. Kerry, on the other hand, has changed his stance on the war 3 times during his campaign alone.

I never knew it was about slander, lies, deciet, propoganda and name calling.

You call it slander, I call it pointing out the truth, which of course means that ITS NOT SLANDER, LIES OR DECEIT. Propoganda? Well, thats debatable depending on your definition.

Just because you don't like what was said, doesn't mean that its not true or a valid issue in the campaign for the Presidency.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

I think thats a double standard. The Democrats have been just as harsh against Bush, except during their convention, and have received no criticism for it. When the Republicans do the same thing, they are reamed a new a-hole for it. Its the same thing with the 527 advertisement issue.

And it should be about BOTH who did what when and what how. What a politician did in the past is the ONLY device you can use to measure what he will do in the future. Based on that evidence, Kerry has little credibility on the anti-terrorism stances he has claimed now and it is a VERY valid argument to bring up in a campaign or debate.

As for your points about Zell Miller, he believes he isn;t wishy washy at all, but that the Democratic party has abandoned HIM, and if you look at modern political history he has a point. If you look at the platform that JFK ran on, he appears much more of a moderate Republican by today's standards than a Democrat.
I've never noticed a double standard, but it always seemed as if the republican party did a lot more fingerpointing than the democratic party. A very good example is the Clinton affair, it was blown way out of proportion, some may argue that theres no proof that it was directly from the Republicans though, but as soon as the 9/11 disaster hit, when all planes were grounded, Bush, with the US Governments money sent I think about 96 Bin Laden family members home on jets. I think that if the situations were turned, the Republicans would have made sure this was public.....just my two cents.

[Professor S]

I've never noticed a double standard, but it always seemed as if the republican party did a lot more fingerpointing than the democratic party.

I should have been more specific. I was referring to the 527 situation and how the Republican party is being held responsible for the Swift Boat ads, while the democratic party is rarely ever associated with organixzations like MoveOn and The Media Fund, which have accrued nearly 10 times the camapaign funds of the Republican Party.

[Dylflon]

And it should be about BOTH who did what when and what how. What a politician did in the past is the ONLY device you can use to measure what he will do in the future.

I remember that in the past George Bush promised the capture of Osama Bin Laden. I remember that out of the blue he forgot all about Osama and sent his nation's army to occupy Iraq. I remember that when no WMDs were found he changed what he said the mission was about, "freeing the Iraqi people". I remember that because of his administration the highest amount of jobs had been lost since the great depression.

Are these past actions any indication as to what George W. Bush may do in the future if he's re-elected?

[Professor S]

I remember that in the past George Bush promised the capture of Osama Bin Laden. I remember that out of the blue he forgot all about Osama and sent his nation's army to occupy Iraq.

If you think Bush "forgot" about Osama Bin Laden you obviously don't absorb more than the TV tells you. We still have troops in Afghanistan, are currently still working with Pakistan to find him. Do we have our full forces in Afghanistan? No, as it does not take an army to bring in one man. That would be a complete waste of resources that would be better used forming a democracy in a country and region thats known only death and oppression for the last 30 years. A democracy that could change the entire middle east over the next 20-50 years and would do more to end terrorist than any special ops group or smart bomb could ever do.

I remember that when no WMDs were found he changed what he said the mission was about, "freeing the Iraqi people".

I also remember both Britain and Russia admitting to giving the US bad intelligence information. I also remember Bill Clinton evicerating the CIA during his tenure which led to our dependence on foreign forms of intelligence. I also remember the evidence found after the occupation of Iraq that Saddam had ordered a nuclear missile delivery system from North Korea. I also remember that Iraq had thousands of pounds of chemical and biological weaponry in 1998 (found by the UN), which led to the whole UN inspection debacle, and which also magically "disappeared" with no evidence of destruction. I also remember Iraq completely refusing to cooperate with the UN inspectors and openly defying the world into believing he still had them, which the whole world, including the previous administration, thought he still did. I also remember that Iraq was the only country to have used chemical weapons since the vietnam war. I also remember Iraq attacking two separate nations (Iran and Kuwait) in the span of ten years with no provocation. I also remember Iraq under Saddam attempting to develop their own nuclear missile system in the early eighties but it was destroyed by the Isreali's.

And by the way, the Bush administration has never said that they don't believe that there were never WMD in Iraq during the time in which the inpections were being stopped by Saddam. Did they change PR strategies? Yes, because too many news organizations would rather look past the obvious to find the sensational story, but the administration has never said they don't believe that Saddam did not have them.

I remember that because of his administration the highest amount of jobs had been lost since the great depression.

I also remember the tech bubble that the Clinton administration sat by and watched burst in Bush's face. I also remember a little event called "the worst terrorist attack in world history" that happened on our shores that led to the job rates falling horribly over the next 6 months. I also remember that the US has one of the best employment rates IN THE WORLD and at its current level is the same during 1996 when our oh so popular president Bill Clinton was re-elected.

See? I can remember stuff too...

[Jonbo298]

Would you like a cookie now?

[Professor S]

Would you like a cookie now?

Wow. A witty retort meant to counter the seriousness of my post, but without any substance of any kind. How very typical.

I'm officially retiring from political debates for a while, as I just realized that not only have I pointed out these little tidbits of information over and over again in the past 2 years, but that poeple just choose to ignore them, as Jonbo just did, instead preferring to believe in their own political dogma rather than whats staring them right in the face.

I will leave you with this little note:

There is only one other president, in my opinion, who has had to deal with more than Bush during his tenure in office, and that is Franklin Roosevelt, and it took him 3 terms and one 3 year world war (which endeed a 10 year economic depression) to right the ship. By this standard Bush is not only succeeding but is doing an amazing job.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

RIP Strangler of the Liberals.

You have transcended to a better place.

... a place unclouded by the ignorance which was forced against your intelligence.

Though your posts will be missed, I can't help but laugh at the ineptitude of the competition against ye.

Wait, which one of you kids told me this was a serious place with intelligent discussion?

[Crono]

Wow. A witty retort meant to counter the seriousness of my post, but without any substance of any kind. How very typical.

I'm officially retiring from political debates for a while, as I just realized that not only have I pointed out these little tidbits of information over and over again in the past 2 years, but that poeple just choose to ignore them, as Jonbo just did, instead preferring to believe in their own political dogma rather than whats staring them right in the face.



I was waiting for someone to say that... not for you retiring from debates, but everything else, heh. Good job.

Funny how the liberals on this board claim to be open minded (unlike yourself, according to them), yet they won't open their mind to the facts, only what they believe or claim to know. Pitiful.

[Jonbo298]

Wow. A witty retort meant to counter the seriousness of my post, but without any substance of any kind. How very typical.

I'm officially retiring from political debates for a while, as I just realized that not only have I pointed out these little tidbits of information over and over again in the past 2 years, but that poeple just choose to ignore them, as Jonbo just did, instead preferring to believe in their own political dogma rather than whats staring them right in the face.

I will leave you with this little note:

There is only one other president, in my opinion, who has had to deal with more than Bush during his tenure in office, and that is Franklin Roosevelt, and it took him 3 terms and one 3 year world war (which endeed a 10 year economic depression) to right the ship. By this standard Bush is not only succeeding but is doing an amazing job.


My comment was only meant as a joke to your "See I can remember stuff too...."

I wasn't referring to your entire post. I read it.

Next time I'll remember to quote the area I meant to talk about.

[Bond]

I'm officially retiring from political debates for a while, as I just realized that not only have I pointed out these little tidbits of information over and over again in the past 2 years, but that poeple just choose to ignore them, as Jonbo just did, instead preferring to believe in their own political dogma rather than whats staring them right in the face.
You have seen the light. :beerchug:

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

oi, no matter how many times this topic comes up, it ALWAYS turns into Strangler, Gekko and Bond (AKA the Republicans) vs everyone else (AKA....everyone else)....ah well

It always leads to a comment similar to what Jonbo posted which starts flaming, hopefully it won't escalate this time.
p.s., i know there are more republicans in the forums, i just forgot who you are.

[Jonbo298]

Well, like I said in my other post, I was just referring to Strangler's last little sentence. I never actually meant to make Strangler so pissed off he gives up. I read his post. I just forgot to quote what I meant to reply to.

[Bond]

oi, no matter how many times this topic comes up, it ALWAYS turns into Strangler, Gekko and Bond (AKA the Republicans) vs everyone else (AKA....everyone else)....ah well

It always leads to a comment similar to what Jonbo posted which starts flaming, hopefully it won't escalate this time.
p.s., i know there are more republicans in the forums, i just forgot who you are.
The problem is we only debate one or two issues. If we would debate more issues it would not always end up like that.

[Professor S]

Jonbo, just to clarify, it wasn't your post that made me have my catharsis, it was more reading my own response to Dyflon's post which made me realize two things:

1) I have repeated myself over and over and over again in the same arguments, as Bond pointed out.

and

2) No one is listening. I'm talking to myself. I'm repeating facts and examples to those who aren't absorbing them and don't care to listen to anything that doesn't sit well with their already predetermined beliefs.

So why bother? Answer: I shouldn't.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

i think both sides are being a stubborn about understanding the other point of view.