Republican Convention Thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Furthermore - doesn't blatant hypocrisy bug you? Regardless of who is doing it? Shouldn't the exposure of hypocrisy be a good thing for a healthy campaign and an honest political discourse?

It has been noted that excessively partisan individuals--regardless of ideology--are pretty much incapable of critical thinking when it comes to their own party (which is always deemed "good") and the party it opposes (which is always deemed "bad") to the point of irrationality.

I'm not here to accuse any one individual or candidate's supporters here of this, as I think that numerous people here have been guilty of it. This is why the learned skill of critical thinking is all the more important. I know I've been guilty of it in the past, and I'm actually quite thankful that John Kerry turned out to be a steaming pile of shit for a candidate, because now I don't feel loyal to any party or candidate or believe that any party or candidate actually cares about my interests. Nonetheless, you can still support a candidate without having blind faith in them, as I have come to the decision that Obama, in spite of being imperfect, is preferable to McCain, who I believe is much worse.

To answer your question, to an excessively partisan individual, exposing hypocrisy is only important, as long as the party they hate is the one being exposed. If hypocrisy is being exposed to the party that they "believe" in, well, then we must rip apart the source that's exposing the hypocrisy and deem it non-credible or biased, regardless of the facts. Cognitive dissonance dilemmas solved.
 
But the diehards at the convention looked bored during the McCain speech. They were anything but "fired up" Thursday night - their applause was not enthusiastic, etc. The McCain camp has to be worried about that.

I disagree. We must have been watching different speeches. The crowd was very fired up, and the applause was plenty enthusiastic. If you want to compare his applause to Obama's, that doesn't mean anything. The diehards in the crowd had tears in their eyes.
 
Furthermore - doesn't blatant hypocrisy bug you? Regardless of who is doing it? Shouldn't the exposure of hypocrisy be a good thing for a healthy campaign and an honest political discourse?

Did you read the State of the State address????

"We can and must continue to develop our economy, because we cannot and must not rely so heavily on federal government earmarks. Instead, let us power up and produce for Alaska and America. We can do this – we’re 50 years old now, and it’s time!"

Sarah Palin can be questioned on earmarks, she did have them. However, from her own words...an address to her state 8 months before being asked to be a VP candidate, she said that they, "can not and must not" rely on them. I think this is a quote of her policy and where she wanted to take her state. I'm not saying that this erases the issue from potential attack but I believe that this speaks to her desire to move away from earmarks to a position of what McCain is seeking in total elimination of pork.

Again, this is why I think it would bite the left if they try to go at her. O and B have poor records for earmarks. McCain has none and Palin, although having used earmarks, has proof that her desire is not rely on them. I dont see how this could have a good result for the Obama campaign unless they try to be deceptive. Im sure they can rely on the liberal bloggers and CNN and MSNBC to do their dirty work.
 
Did you read the State of the State address????

"We can and must continue to develop our economy, because we cannot and must not rely so heavily on federal government earmarks. Instead, let us power up and produce for Alaska and America. We can do this – we’re 50 years old now, and it’s time!"

Sarah Palin can be questioned on earmarks, she did have them. However, from her own words...an address to her state 8 months before being asked to be a VP candidate, she said that they, "can not and must not" rely on them. I think this is a quote of her policy and where she wanted to take her state. I'm not saying that this erases the issue from potential attack but I believe that this speaks to her desire to move away from earmarks to a position of what McCain is seeking in total elimination of pork.



thank you for aptly demonstrating that Ms. Palin is a two-faced hypocrite, a say one thing and do another politician who lied about the Bridge to Nowhere and who repeatedly abuses the small amount of power that her office gives her.

good work my friend. :up:
 
I disagree. We must have been watching different speeches. The crowd was very fired up, and the applause was plenty enthusiastic. If you want to compare his applause to Obama's, that doesn't mean anything. The diehards in the crowd had tears in their eyes.

The consensus on the radio shows yesterday was that his speech was just there nothing special...
 
Did you read the State of the State address????

"We can and must continue to develop our economy, because we cannot and must not rely so heavily on federal government earmarks. Instead, let us power up and produce for Alaska and America. We can do this – we’re 50 years old now, and it’s time!"

Sarah Palin can be questioned on earmarks, she did have them. However, from her own words...an address to her state 8 months before being asked to be a VP candidate, she said that they, "can not and must not" rely on them. I think this is a quote of her policy and where she wanted to take her state. I'm not saying that this erases the issue from potential attack but I believe that this speaks to her desire to move away from earmarks to a position of what McCain is seeking in total elimination of pork.

Again, this is why I think it would bite the left if they try to go at her. O and B have poor records for earmarks. McCain has none and Palin, although having used earmarks, has proof that her desire is not rely on them. I dont see how this could have a good result for the Obama campaign unless they try to be deceptive. Im sure they can rely on the liberal bloggers and CNN and MSNBC to do their dirty work.

The issue is not the earmarks. The issue is hypocrisy. Obama and Biden have not struck a public crusade against earmarks, so their use of them is not hypocritical to their stance on the subject. McCain and Palin have been quite blatant in their negativity towards earmarks, and yet Palin actively used them often and as governor (remember she's only been governor for 21 months now) had the most per-capita spending in earmarks among all 50 states. Even when she was a mayor of a small town she went so far as to hire a lobbyist to help her secure them.

And despite her words in January, she still submitted a list to Congress for this budget year that requested nearly $200 million in earmarks.

Do as I say, not as I do.
 
McCain supporters, rescued 12,000 miniature American flags from the site of Barack Obama’s nomination acceptance speech last Thursday, redistributed the orphan flags to audience members ahead of a McCain rally in Colorado Springs on Saturday.

The move was an overt swipe at Obama from a campaign whose motto has been “country first.”

The flags were discovered by a vendor at Denver’s Invesco Field after the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention. The vendor found trash bags full of flags in garbage bins.

Boy Scouts were sorting through 84 bags of flags in Colorado on Saturday.

“We want to find good homes for these flags,” Dan Caplis said at the rally, adding that whatever flags remained would be placed at memorials throughout Colorado.




if that old McCain wrapped himself any tighter in the flag

he would turn into a mummy.
 
Convention bounce?:

Poll: Convention lifts McCain over Obama - USATODAY.com

Among the findings:

• Before the convention, Republicans by 47%-39% were less enthusiastic than usual about voting. Now, they are more enthusiastic by 60%-24%, a sweeping change that narrows a key Democratic advantage. Democrats report being more enthusiastic by 67%-19%.

• Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a national unknown before McCain chose her for the ticket 10 days ago, draws a strong reaction from voters on both sides. Now, 29% say she makes them more likely to vote for McCain, 21% less likely.

Obama's choice of Delaware Sen. Joe Biden as running mate made 14% more likely to vote for the Democrat, 7% less likely.

• McCain's acceptance speech Thursday received lower ratings than the one Obama gave a week earlier: 15% called McCain's speech "excellent" compared with 35% for Obama.



<>
 
Convention bounce?:



yes, there has been one. what else?

it seems to me that this race finally has it's first genuine celebrity.

and it's a she.

(it's really ironic how Palin is everything the Republican attack ads have accused Obama of being)
 
an empty celebrity who gives a good speech but has no substance at all, someone who appeals to guilt -- racial guilt, now in Palin's case, sexist guilt -- and little else, and that she's totally undeserving of the position she's in.

That's all a matter of opinion. Saying that she is "totally undeserving" is a bit much. She's run a city. She's run a state. She does have more executive experience than the other 3 guys combined. She may not have a 20+ year history in Washington, but she is an experienced, proven politician.
 
an empty celebrity who gives a good speech but has no substance at all, someone who appeals to guilt -- racial guilt, now in Palin's case, sexist guilt -- and little else, and that she's totally undeserving of the position she's in.

Can't you see that's EXACTLY why she's popular with certain segments of the public...because she is "totally undesrving" - people love a come-from-nowhere story. They generally do not like long serving politicians like John McCain and Joe Biden. This is the year of the new comer - either Obama or Palin. They are the story. McCain and Biden are on the sidelines. Why can't most of you understand that?????
 
Can't you see that's EXACTLY why she's popular with certain segments of the public...because she is "totally undesrving" - people love a come-from-nowhere story. They generally do not like long serving politicians like John McCain and Joe Biden. This is the year of the new comer - either Obama or Palin. They are the story. McCain and Biden are on the sidelines. Why can't most of you understand that?????



because we're all too stupid, Harry.

thank goodness you're here to yell at us.
 
Back
Top Bottom