Republican Convention Thread

[Irvine511]

Ok, let me try and clarify...

IT'S NOT THE FACT THAT HE WAS A POW, IT'S WHAT HE DID AS A POW AND SINCE BECAUSE OF THE EXPERIENCE.

I'm suspicious that many of you don't know the actualy POW story.

i do. i know that he attempted suicide and make false confessions. he admitted that every man has his breaking point and they found his. it makes McCain very human to me.

what he's done SINCE being a POW is what makes me not want him to be president, and it's what he's done since losing in 2000 that makes me not want him to be president even more.

 

[phillyfan26]

Not to flame you at all...but when has Obama showed this judgment? Daley political connections? Coke? Connections to domestic terrorists and the likes of Rezco?

In his stances. That's the bottom line for me. Stances and plans. Obama has the stances and plans I think would help America a hell of a lot more than McCain.

 

[phillyfan26]

"John McCain was a POW" doesn't qualify him to be president. But as was stated, it played in incredible role in his character. Hearing the stories of his military service and capture, and his persistent hope and optimism, and putting his country and his fellow servicemen before his own well-being speaks volumes to me.

I like what Lieberman said. If the Democrats want to make the election about judgment, fine. Anyone who votes to cut off funding to our troops at war has no business being president. That's good judgment?

I don't understand how people can think that Barack Obama will end the political partisanship in Washington, when A) he never has done anything of the sort, and B) he's the most liberal man in the senate. Can anyone give me examples of when Obama went against his own party on something? John McCain has done just that.

That's all nice and all, but his view of America's future differs too much from mine. He wants us to be at war with Iraq for another hundred years. I'm with the guy who made the symbolic vote to end the war, personally. His judgment is simple: let's start getting out of Iraq. That's what his vote was about. It's quite simple, and you read too much into that. Look at his plan on getting out of Iraq. That's where the real stance of Barack Obama is. That's where his judgment is.

I'm not asking or expecting him to end political partisanship in Washington. I'm asking him to nominate judges that will end conservative bullshit and give civil rights to everyone. I'm asking him to start moving the economy out of its constant tailspin. I'm asking to start getting us out of Iraq. Not do a shitload of things all at once. Start us in the right direction, that's all. I think it's reasonable, and I think he can do it.

 

[phillyfan26]

I'm curious. Why is it when there is talk of John McCain's POW experience, Obama supporters are awfully quick to say "that doesn't qualify him to be President!"....Yet when I ask my friends who are Obama supporters what they like about him, they say things like "he understands what it's like to work your way up, work yourself through college...etc." Seems pretty hypocritical to me. How does Obama's background qualify him for President? By this logic, we can't use anybody's past experience as a judge of character...doesn't make sense.

It's not a judge of judgment. I think the stances and plans are the best indicators of judgment.

 

[deep]

In his stances. That's the bottom line for me. Stances and plans. Obama has the stances and plans I think would help America a hell of a lot more than McCain.

you and several of his supporters have said this before

and I take you at your word.



however, stances and plans are not set in stone
there is no guarantee

also, there is no record of him really doing anything

 

[Boston01]

It's not a judge of judgment. I think the stances and plans are the best indicators of judgment.

I think it is also best to make sure those plans are realistic.

 

[anitram]

what he's done SINCE being a POW is what makes me not want him to be president, and it's what he's done since losing in 2000 that makes me not want him to be president even more.

 

[Se7en]

you and several of his supporters have said this before

and I take you at your word.



however, stances and plans are not set in stone
there is no guarantee

also, there is no record of him really doing anything

your point here confuses me a bit, as you seem quite anti-bush, so to speak, yet mccain voted with bush almost 90% of the time and about 95% of the time since 2007. that's a hell of a track record.

 

[phillyfan26]

you and several of his supporters have said this before

and I take you at your word.

however, stances and plans are not set in stone
there is no guarantee

also, there is no record of him really doing anything

Nothing is set in stone, especially considering situations will change. But I think that, because his plans are feasible, because they are built in reality, he will be able to act on a lot of them, and start a lot of things in the right direction. They're not overly ambitious. They're doable. They show a good grasp of the current situation.

 

[2861U2]

your point here confuses me a bit, as you seem quite anti-bush, so to speak, yet mccain voted with bush almost 90% of the time and about 95% of the time since 2007. that's a hell of a track record.

Obama likes to talk about that 90% figure. He better be careful. Obama has voted with Bush about 50% of the time. Should the nation take a 50% chance on change?

Also, McCain is much more likely to vote against his party, voting with Republicans 70-90% of the time compared to Obama voting with Democrats 95% of the time.

 

[Se7en]

Obama likes to talk about that 90% figure. He better be careful. Obama has voted with Bush about 50% of the time. Should the nation take a 50% chance on change?

Also, McCain is much more likely to vote against his party, voting with Republicans 70-90% of the time compared to Obama voting with Democrats 95% of the time.

that's fair, i guess - though completely irrelevant.

i'm trying to make sense of deep's position about track records when mccain's is firmly behind bush, a president that deep seems to dislike. i didn't suggest that obama was a better choice.

 

[anitram]

Good news, gals, they're preparing a special FEMININE speech just for us!!

As for the speech itself, Davis said a generic, "masculine" speech was being prepared before the pick was made and, now that Palin is the choice, she is adapting the speech to her own needs and personality.

 

[deep]

your point here confuses me a bit, as you seem quite anti-bush, so to speak, yet mccain voted with bush almost 90% of the time and about 95% of the time since 2007. that's a hell of a track record.

Obama voted with Bush on Iraq 86 times.


What per cent of the time do you think Biden or Obama voted with Bush ?


I am pretty ambivalent about this election.

I am still undecided.

My confidence has never been more than about 53 % for one candidate.

In 1996, 2000, and 2004 I was somewhere between 85-98 % confident of my vote. I did vote Democratic in those 3 elections.


McCain is a lot different than Bush.

Obama is the least qualified candidate to get the nomination that I can recall, expect perhaps Bush.

So Obama is a roll of the dice.

and with McCain, I expect the Dem majorities in the Senate and House to keep him from anything too extreme.
So for someone like me that was happy with a somewhat middle course, like Bill Clinton's Presidency, which candidate is for me?

 

[2861U2]

Obama voted with Bush on Iraq 86 times.


What per cent of the time do you think Biden or Obama voted with Bush ?


I am pretty ambivalent about this election.

I am still undecided.

My confidence has never been more than about 53 % for one candidate.

In 1996, 2000, and 2004 I was somewhere between 85-98 % confident of my vote. I did vote Democratic in those 3 elections.


McCain is a lot different than Bush.

Obama is the least qualified candidate to get the nomination that I can recall, expect perhaps Bush.

So Obama is a roll of the dice.

and with McCain, I expect the Dem majorities in the Senate and House to keep him from anything too extreme.
So for someone like me that was happy with a somewhat middle course, like Bill Clinton's Presidency, which candidate is for me?

When the time comes, will you tell us who you vote for? I think I speak for all of FYM when I say I'm very curious as to which you will eventually pick.

 

[Se7en]

and with McCain, I expect the Dem majorities in the Senate and House to keep him from anything too extreme.

this would have sufficed.

 

[VintagePunk]

Obama voted with Bush on Iraq 86 times.


What per cent of the time do you think Biden or Obama voted with Bush ?


I am pretty ambivalent about this election.

I am still undecided.

My confidence has never been more than about 53 % for one candidate.

In 1996, 2000, and 2004 I was somewhere between 85-98 % confident of my vote. I did vote Democratic in those 3 elections.


McCain is a lot different than Bush.

Obama is the least qualified candidate to get the nomination that I can recall, expect perhaps Bush.

So Obama is a roll of the dice.

and with McCain, I expect the Dem majorities in the Senate and House to keep him from anything too extreme.
So for someone like me that was happy with a somewhat middle course, like Bill Clinton's Presidency, which candidate is for me?

Genuine, sincere question: have you felt this way all along, or have recent events calling McCain's judgment into question caused you to rethink your stance?

 

[deep]

I have been going back and forth, for awhile





As for the Palin pick
it does not bother me
I think it is more of a positive.


In a week to 10 days there will be a consensus
one way or the other.


There are things I like about both candidates

I tend to let the positive influence me.

 

[VintagePunk]

Thanks for the response.

I agree about your timing, a week or so sounds about right to me. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

[namkcuR]

Thompson's speech was interesting. Two things:

1.The re-telling of McCain's capture and imprisonment was, as even the far left Keith Olbermann put it, "effective and moving". What he went through - although I can't know for sure since I have not lived it - was scarier, and took more bravery, than probably anything I'll ever do in my life, than probably anything most of you will ever do in your lives. It is worth noting that the false confession(s) were conveniently left out of the speech, but I'm not going to dwell on that - it doesn't change what he went through, for the most part. It was not fun listening the description of what he went through, physically, psychologically. No one should have to go through that. It is a human experience that transcends politics. Which is precisely why it shouldn't be thrown around every five minutes to justify this or explain away that. As has been said - even by Thompson himself - being a POW doesn't qualify one to be president, but it does say something about character. I respect the fact that McCain went through his ordeal and came out alive. But his politics - his stances on the issues - go against the grain of my very being, and his judgement recently has left a good deal to be desired. And those two things, to me, matter more in deciding who should be president, than the fact that McCain was a POW. Like I said, it is an issue that transcends politics, and is affecting on a human level, but to suggest that it is reason to vote for him for president is insulting to me, and I, for one, was glad to hear Thompson openly say, 'being a POW doesn't qualify one to be president'.

2.I was disappointed to hear Thompson go on an anti-tax tirade. If you want to have the government run quality programs and be able to provide quality care to those in the military, veterans, or just your average citizens, you have to have taxes. The government doesn't run for free, and the way it gets money is to tax. You cannot, without walking neck-deep in a pool of hypocrisy, cry 'cut taxes, cut taxes!' and then when they are cut, bitch about the lack of quality of government programs. Thompson's whole analogy about which side of the pail you take water from is simplistic. Clearly, I don't believe in trickle-down economics. Most non-rich people don't get any direct benefit from it at all. So all I'm going to say is the standard left-wing philosophy on taxes in recent years: You raise taxes for the well-off to fund the tax-cuts you give to the lower/middle-classes. You let billionaires pay the highest percentage of taxes so that those who are struggling to make ends meet can have some relief. I don't accept the conservative argument/philosophy that this 'punishes' the well-off for their success. It's not punishment if you're rich and even your increased tax payments don't put a dent in your lifestyle. That's all I'll say about that.

 

[diamond]

Gay Republicans for Mac:

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/09/02/breaking-news-log-cabin-endorses-john-mccain/

 

[melon]

Gay Republicans for Mac:

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/09/02/breaking-news-log-cabin-endorses-john-mccain/

Gay Republicans: GOP on 'wrong side of history' - CNN.com

Gay Republicans: GOP on 'wrong side of history'

A group of gay and lesbian Republicans has traveled to the site of the GOP convention this week to help convince its party that it is time to stop being on the "wrong side" of the same-sex marriage issue.
Log Cabin Republicans President Patrick Sammon says "momentum is on our side."

"Clearly, the tide is turning," said Scott Tucker, communications director for the Log Cabin Republicans. "It's important for the Republican Party to be inclusive on this issue, because we are risk of being on the wrong side of history."

Although the group's president, Patrick Sammon, acknowledges that few politicians in either party support "marriage equality," as the group dubs the same-sex marriage issue, "it's clear momentum is on our side."

Sammon and other Log Cabin Republicans pointed to a poll indicating that the party is starting to move closer to their positions.

A CBS News/New York Times poll released Monday found that 49 percent of the delegates to the Republican convention support allowing same-sex marriages or civil unions. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

 

[BostonAnne]

Obama voted with Bush on Iraq 86 times.


What per cent of the time do you think Biden or Obama voted with Bush ?


I am pretty ambivalent about this election.

I am still undecided.

My confidence has never been more than about 53 % for one candidate.

In 1996, 2000, and 2004 I was somewhere between 85-98 % confident of my vote. I did vote Democratic in those 3 elections.


McCain is a lot different than Bush.

Obama is the least qualified candidate to get the nomination that I can recall, expect perhaps Bush.

So Obama is a roll of the dice.

and with McCain, I expect the Dem majorities in the Senate and House to keep him from anything too extreme.
So for someone like me that was happy with a somewhat middle course, like Bill Clinton's Presidency, which candidate is for me?

deep, I have struggled with the same issues during the primaries when comparing Clinton & Obama. I came to the conclusion that what America needs most is change in the way Washington conducts business. Experience does sound so much more comforting and it makes sense to want someone that can bring the experience to the table. But with that experience comes all the baggage and the a lot of the public's anger towards it all - especially with Hillary but perhaps with McCain as well.

Obama is a roll of the dice perhaps, but maybe that is what America needs. The hope that someone can perhaps change how the government is working. McCain may bring some change, but during this election it looks like he's modeling himself to be the image the GOP think the voters want and what he's really all about is becoming unpredictable. If he wins, how much are his hands tied to bring to us the change we need? Perhaps another roll of the dice. McCain can lose it at times and that can reflect on him poorly. Obama seems to hold composure and is an inspiring voice to lead us.

 

[Zoomerang96]

Wow, I'm suprised you guys are joking about the hurricane.

the daily show has a laugh about it, but on here if anyone dares make light of the situation they're deemed to have personally caused moral strife to those living in gustav's path.

i think that's pretty funny in itself.

"how can anyone have a laugh when there's a HURRICANE HAPPENING!!!"

 

[No spoken words]

the daily show has a laugh about it, but on here if anyone dares make light of the situation they're deemed to have personally caused moral strife to those living in gustav's path.

i think that's pretty funny in itself.

"how can anyone have a laugh when there's a HURRICANE HAPPENING!!!"

I agree that sometimes interference needs to loosen up, but, using the Daily Show as an example is a poor choice.....they're a comedy show, that's their purpose, to have a laugh, regardless of who they're laughing at. Caveat Emptor when you elect to watch. I'm not sure you expect to see any comedic references towards the Hurricane in a thread with a serious tone or title.

 

[mobvok]

Romney speech excerpts

"We need change all right - change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington - throw out the big government liberals and elect John McCain."

"Liberals would replace opportunity with dependency on government largesse. They would grow government and raise taxes to put more people on Medicaid, to work requirements out of welfare, and to grow the ranks of those who pay no taxes at all. Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. It's time to stop the spread of government dependency to fight it like the poison it is! It's time for the party of big ideas, not the party of Big Brother!"

I really, really, really hope he uses that line during the actual speech. Go on, Mitt Romney, blast the party of Big Brother! The one that tries to operate in complete secrecy and demands warrantless wiretaps! You know, the other guys. Not us.

 

[deep]

Romney speech excerpts





I really, really, really hope he uses that line during the actual speech. Go on, Mitt Romney, blast the party of Big Brother! The one that tries to operate in complete secrecy and demands warrantless wiretaps! You know, the other guys. Not us.

Who really is going to be paying much attention to Romney?


Romney is playing for the 2012 nomination

and if Obama wins with Dems majorities in both houses

a good left lurch

could easily clear the way for the swing voters to move right

 

[BVS]

Republicans talking about big brother...

 

[Zoots]

What did we learn from that speech? She knows John McCain.

 

[diamond]

Yeah, that was snoozer-altho not bad on the eyes.

Fast Freddy was tortorous night last night.

<>

 

[namkcuR]

Not a good speech. Uninspiring. Even being a guy, I have a hard time listening to women speak against the party that has historically fought for their right to be in the very position they're in now - running businesses, speaking at national political conventions, being on a presidential ticket, etc.