RNC

[sox4lifeinPA]

Da Big Night y'all!

 

can't wait:)

 

anyone just hear michael W. Smith perform?

 

 

damn redneck republicans with all the country music and christian artists performing...

 

I mean, Brooks and Dunn, Leeann Womack, and the Gatlin brothers ain't no blacke eyed peas :rolly

[Chisoxfn]

Governor Putake, isn't much of a speaker. Hell, he sounds like me (aka an avg speaker).

[Chisoxfn]

God damn republicans need to shut the hell up with this flip flop bulls***. Stupid people at the convention.

[sox4lifeinPA]

yeah, he's doing alright. Nothing we haven't heard all week.

 

"win one for the gipper"

"lose one with the flipper"

 

yikes. that's the best you could do???

[LowerCaseRepublican]

God damn republicans need to shut the hell up with this flip flop bulls***.  Stupid people at the convention.

Yeah...damn flip flopping of Kerry sooner or later they'll say that you can't win the war on terror and then the very next day say that you are gonna win it -- oh wait.

 

It seems they are running on flip-flopping because there are no issues that Bush can run on. Underfunded NCLB, a purely elective war in Iraq that has bogged down the military, a sputtering economy (consumer confidence down in August and not one net job created by Bush administration yet), cutting veterans' benefits, decreasing Pell grants, etc. etc. etc.

 

Neither one of these neo-conservative twits deserves to be on the ballot.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Yeah...damn flip flopping of Kerry sooner or later they'll say that you can't win the war on terror and then the very next day say that you are gonna win it -- oh wait.

 

 

I KNOW you're inteligent enough to under stand what Bush meant by we can't win the war. It's not like one day after months and months of bombing, negotiating, treaties, cooperation from allies, terrorists everywhere are going to put up some white flag.

 

you're better than partisanship apu. hate both sides, anarchists

[Chisoxfn]

I KNOW you're inteligent enough to under stand what Bush meant by we can't win the war. It's not like one day after months and months of bombing, negotiating, treaties, cooperation from allies, terrorists everywhere are going to put up some white flag.

 

you're better than partisanship apu. hate both sides, anarchists

Like Newt said, Bush should of stuck to his original stance which was that the war can't be won. The next day he made a comment that they will win it and what not.

 

As far as the flipflopping goes, I have no problem with attacking a guys record, part of what you have to do is say, I'm better, heres what I want to do, now look at what he's wanted to do.

 

However, the whole crowd doesn't need to be loud SOB's. Their chanting makes them sound like absolute morons, as far as I'm concerned. Just shut up and listen. If you want to clap clap, if a speaker gets to a point where they say something and its kind of like they say it a few times then you repeat as they say it, fine....but FLIP FLOP...FLIP Flop...how about SHUT THE HELL UP

[sox4lifeinPA]

bush is about to be on:)

 

woohoo!! go GWB!!!

 

EDIT:

 

btw... Fred Thompson rules

[sox4lifeinPA]

"he helped us come back"

 

hellllllllllllll yeah... and that was a strike...not no WP like John Kerry

[LowerCaseRepublican]

No, PA. I applaud Bush for saying we can't win IT. In the video from the Today show the emphasis was on "it". (inferring that we can with other wars but not this war on "terror")

 

In his most important policy speech, on September 20, 2001, the president called the war on terrorism "a task that does not end." A few days earlier, Dick Cheney said: "There's not going to be an end date when we're going to say, 'There, it's all over with.''' Donald Rumsfeld agreed that we "surely will not" eliminate terrorism "completely from the face of the Earth."

 

So what would constitute victory, a reporter asked Rumsfeld. His answer gave away the game. This will always be a dangerous world, he replied, full of "powerful weapons and with people who are willing to use those powerful weapons." Victory means simply being able to "continue our way of life. . to a point that you are satisfied that the American people are going to be able to live their lives in relative freedom and have the kinds of linkages with the rest of the world that we feel are so central to our well being." The U.S. will have won when "the American people and our interests and friends and allies and deployed forces can go about our business not in fear."

 

"Business" and "linkages" are the operative words, as Bush made clear a few weeks later: "We cannot let the terrorists achieve the objective of frightening our nation to the point where we don't conduct business or people don't shop. Terrorists want to turn the openness of the global economy against itself. We must not let them.. Out of the sorrow of September 11th, I see opportunity to expand our ties of trade."

 

Right now, we're living with a bi-partisan administration (Bush and Kerry) who are looking to keep the specter of endless war on the population in order to keep us quiet and not questioning via the PATRIOT Act and the VICTORY Act (Orrin Hatch and DOJ legislation that was written and is a LOT worse than PATRIOT I...but it was leaked and the DOJ got nailed with a lot of egg on its face)

 

When Bush went on Rush Limbaugh's show to do damage control, the truth slipped out once again. Limbaugh suggested that terrorism is "always going to happen because it always has." Bush simply replied: "Right." Then he turned the conversation to his real goal: making predominantly Muslim nations more friendly to U.S. interests and more willing to follow the U.S. model.

 

That goal won't be up for debate in this campaign season. The Democrats are just as committed to it as the GOP. Just two days after 9/11, Democratic pundit Thomas Friedman explained what the war on terrorism is all about. There is a battle raging throughout the Muslim world, he said, between the modernizers, who accept the dominance of US-style globalization, and the traditionalists who oppose it. The goal of this new war is to break the power of the traditionalists forever.

 

That's the same Tom Friedman who once wrote: "The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Macdonald's cannot flourish without MacDonnell Douglas." American taxpayers won't cough up nearly a half-trillion dollars a year to promote the multinational corporate free market. They need to believe that are protecting themselves against some imminent threat. So the war against terrorism must be "a task that does not end."

[sox4lifeinPA]

No, PA.  I applaud Bush for saying we can't win IT.  In the video from the Today show the emphasis was on "it". (inferring that we can with other wars but not this war on "terror")

 

In his most important policy speech, on September 20, 2001, the president called the war on terrorism "a task that does not end." A few days earlier, Dick Cheney said: "There's not going to be an end date when we're going to say, 'There, it's all over with.''' Donald Rumsfeld agreed that we "surely will not" eliminate terrorism "completely from the face of the Earth."

 

So what would constitute victory, a reporter asked Rumsfeld. His answer gave away the game. This will always be a dangerous world, he replied, full of "powerful weapons and with people who are willing to use those powerful weapons." Victory means simply being able to "continue our way of life. . to a point that you are satisfied that the American people are going to be able to live their lives in relative freedom and have the kinds of linkages with the rest of the world that we feel are so central to our well being." The U.S. will have won when "the American people and our interests and friends and allies and deployed forces can go about our business not in fear."

 

"Business" and "linkages" are the operative words, as Bush made clear a few weeks later: "We cannot let the terrorists achieve the objective of frightening our nation to the point where we don't conduct business or people don't shop. Terrorists want to turn the openness of the global economy against itself. We must not let them.. Out of the sorrow of September 11th, I see opportunity to expand our ties of trade."

 

Right now, we're living with a bi-partisan administration (Bush and Kerry) who are looking to keep the specter of endless war on the population in order to keep us quiet and not questioning via the PATRIOT Act and the VICTORY Act (Orrin Hatch and DOJ legislation that was written and is a LOT worse than PATRIOT I...but it was leaked and the DOJ got nailed with a lot of egg on its face)

 

When Bush went on Rush Limbaugh's show to do damage control, the truth slipped out once again. Limbaugh suggested that terrorism is "always going to happen because it always has." Bush simply replied: "Right." Then he turned the conversation to his real goal: making predominantly Muslim nations more friendly to U.S. interests and more willing to follow the U.S. model.

 

That goal won't be up for debate in this campaign season. The Democrats are just as committed to it as the GOP. Just two days after 9/11, Democratic pundit Thomas Friedman explained what the war on terrorism is all about. There is a battle raging throughout the Muslim world, he said, between the modernizers, who accept the dominance of US-style globalization, and the traditionalists who oppose it. The goal of this new war is to break the power of the traditionalists forever.

 

That's the same Tom Friedman who once wrote: "The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Macdonald's cannot flourish without MacDonnell Douglas." American taxpayers won't cough up nearly a half-trillion dollars a year to promote the multinational corporate free market. They need to believe that are protecting themselves against some imminent threat. So the war against terrorism must be "a task that does not end."

no no, I know what you mean... The problem is, there are way too many people who aren't inteligent enough to know what that means. (Primarily John Edwards).

 

War on Terror=War on Drugs

[CrimsonWeltall]

War on Terror=War on Drugs

 

One would hope not.

[sox4lifeinPA]

One would hope not.

well, i think with Bush, we'll be much more successful at staying ahead of terrorists... my point was that of Apu's. This is not something that'll go away.

[sox4lifeinPA]

"we all know I have a little problem with my english....and I know it was a problem when Arnold S. was pointing it out"

 

awesome jab at yourself Bush!

[Mr. Showtime]

Why did they keep chanting USA? Are they saying Kerry is anti-USA?

[sox4lifeinPA]

Why did they keep chanting USA? Are they saying Kerry is anti-USA? 

they chanted that when Bush was talking about how we'd respond to terrorists. So, appropriately, they chanted USA, in support of our nation resolve.

[Mr. Showtime]

they chanted that when Bush was talking about how we'd respond to terrorists. So, appropriately, they chanted USA, in support of our nation resolve.

I didn't even pick up on that, shows how much I pay attention I guess.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I didn't even pick up on that, shows how much I pay attention I guess.

I suppose my immense bias helped jump that gap ... Definitely not your fault, fine sir.

[sox4lifeinPA]

so I heard the NY firefighters and Police unions gave their support for GWB in november.

 

thoughts?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

One would hope not.

The war on drugs could be won really fast if we had the balls for it. Napalm all the coca fields in South and Central America, make selling drugs here a capital offense and sentencing addicts to manditory treatment.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

so I heard the NY firefighters and Police unions gave their support for GWB in november.

 

thoughts?

I dont doubt it for a second. They experienced Bush's leadership first hand in the days after 9-11 and they liked what they saw. Thankfully they dont have the political blinders on that most other unions have.