The Republican Convention

[Jonbo298]

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

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.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

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.

[Dylflon]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

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?

[dropCGCF]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Its a penis waving competition.

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