Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Republicans don't watch the Democratic Convention because it's propaganda.

Democrats do watch the Republican Convention because they're trying to understand why people think the way they do.

According to CNN, Obama raised $8 million in the last 24 hours since Palin's speech. Apparently, a lot of people thought it was that scary.

Since I am a Republican, I've of course been watching it as closely as Turtle has, and I mostly agree with Racoon's post: its been entirely content free. The only actual *policy* proposal I've heard was in Palin's speech regarding building lots more nuclear power plants. Supposedly McCain will have some policies in his speech tonight, which is about to start.

My main complaint is the constant talk about patriotism and parading all the veterans and talking about their sacrifice. Is there any reason to do this other than to say "if you're not a Republican, you support Islamic Terrorism and surrender!" All this while most of the speeches so far have been talking incessantly about "unity" and "working together."

Which is it? Are non-Republicans demons or are the Republicans going to throw out the Newt Gingrich/Tom Delay/Karl Rove "politics of hate" and actually start *working* with the Democrats?

Oooh POW shots of his video coming up....

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels,
Buffy

I was going to trim down your quote, but there is nothing but meat in it. Scoundrel McCain's speech on the other hand was nothin' but fat. Your wish for new stuff...rejected.

I saw them throw out a couple protestors tonight & 1 last night. The newsies didn't say a word, just put the camera on them. Speaking of stuff I've seen at the convention, McCain's adopted daughter Bridgett doesn't look like a happy child. Last night the camera went on her & her siblings when Cindy was yappin', and one of her sisters was forcefully trying to pull her hands out of her lap & make her clap. Then one of her brothers leaned in with a scowl and scolded her. Add to that her unhappy face and weight gain, and I read unhappy child.

The whole night was monumentally underwhelming.

[jackson33]

Buffy; I really don't know where you get your stats from, but people generally watch what interest them on the TV, or read what headlines interest them.

No one person in this country, including you, agree or disagrees with every issue any candidate has ever expressed an opinion or addressed. Conventions are presentations of a party platform and a means to introduce it candidate (s) in the best possible light. For all practical purpose, the Republican Convention was going to be ignored and with the hurricane coverage, could/should have drawn very few viewers. With less coverage (networks) it settled on 40 million tuning in for Governor Palin's address, 38 for Obama and 37 for McCain's actual speeches.

Side-note; This years presidential election was headed for a referendum for or against Obama, for whatever reason and has now turned back to issues and the personalities of both major parties.

I actually agree with you, on the overplay of patriotism in McCains campaign, but then I have heard the story many times. There are many families, which history date back to the American Revolution or have had four generations of continuous military service, frankly until 1972, most all men did serve actively or in the reserves. However Americans are a patriotic bunch and like stories like those of McCain, JFK, Eisenhower, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt and Washington, especially those millions that served or suffered while their husband/wives were serving.

On working with member of the 'loyal opposition'. I know your familiar with the so called 'Founders', the differences in each of those first 13 colonies and the leaderships, interest or concerns of each. Our difference today are dwarfed by those then, yet they came together forming and implementing what exist today and has somehow survived other period of even more complicated differences. McCain, has already worked across the isle, as did Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Johnson and JFK, each in their own way. Compromise is not a new concept but making it happen seems to have become anti-party. Do you think Delay, Gingrich or Rove oppose compromise or avoid meetings, conversation or social gatherings on party affiliations or some particular issue difference.

What is your understanding of 'Patriotism'. Isn't it or shouldn't it be pride in Country, its people, traditions and/or culture. Its past, present and potential future to the human species. Differences in ideology, party affiliation or to whom ever is currently the leader or leaders should not alter any person pride in country. IMO...

[Michaelangelica]

I can't believe you yanks are going to let the Republicans screw you again.
What is it with you and illogical, old, doddery guys?

For those interested I will look out for immigration details for Oz and NZ for those giving up.

Still its nice to know Palin is a Russian expert living so close as she does. (as Mc Cane's wife said)
I live near the hospital. I thought i might run up and do some surgery tomorrow

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by jackson33

Buffy; I really don't know where you get your stats from, but people generally watch what interest them on the TV, or read what headlines interest them.

No one person in this country, including you, agree or disagrees with every issue any candidate has ever expressed an opinion or addressed. Conventions are presentations of a party platform and a means to introduce it candidate (s) in the best possible light. For all practical purpose, the Republican Convention was going to be ignored and with the hurricane coverage, could/should have drawn very few viewers. With less coverage (networks) it settled on 40 million tuning in for Governor Palin's address, 38 for Obama and 37 for McCain's actual speeches.

Side-note; This years presidential election was headed for a referendum for or against Obama, for whatever reason and has now turned back to issues and the personalities of both major parties.

I actually agree with you, on the overplay of patriotism in McCains campaign, but then I have heard the story many times. There are many families, which history date back to the American Revolution or have had four generations of continuous military service, frankly until 1972, most all men did serve actively or in the reserves. However Americans are a patriotic bunch and like stories like those of McCain, JFK, Eisenhower, Grant, Teddy Roosevelt and Washington, especially those millions that served or suffered while their husband/wives were serving.

On working with member of the 'loyal opposition'. I know your familiar with the so called 'Founders', the differences in each of those first 13 colonies and the leaderships, interest or concerns of each. Our difference today are dwarfed by those then, yet they came together forming and implementing what exist today and has somehow survived other period of even more complicated differences. McCain, has already worked across the isle, as did Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Johnson and JFK, each in their own way. Compromise is not a new concept but making it happen seems to have become anti-party. Do you think Delay, Gingrich or Rove oppose compromise or avoid meetings, conversation or social gatherings on party affiliations or some particular issue difference.

What is your understanding of 'Patriotism'. Isn't it or shouldn't it be pride in Country, its people, traditions and/or culture. Its past, present and potential future to the human species. Differences in ideology, party affiliation or to whom ever is currently the leader or leaders should not alter any person pride in country. IMO...

Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Herman Goering

[Thunderbird]

Gallup.com Election 2008 Coverage Looks like Obama is still leading in the polls dispite McCain's Pallin pick. If you like following the trends and demographics in the polls this is the best site I have found.

[jackson33]

Thunderbird; Anti-war, pacifist or isolationism are common in all society, basing their opinions on many things, religion to politics and between.

If the person, is rooted in his/her country, its history or whatever you consider the the value of that country and can base that objection on those values, patriotism is not lost. If however you fear being drafted, knowing your ancestry had no choice or you not concerned for the future of your society, your descendent's, what could be become their (and your) place in not as you wish, or simply don't care what happens to others, then there is no love of country to begin with...

If Bush II had not gone into Iraq and Iraq had developed a bomb or if he had invaded Kuwait a second time, slowed or stopped the flow of oil, his son's killed off the remaining Kurd's or somehow the 'Worlds Economy' had crumbled, we would be discussing his incompetency. If Iran does achieve Nuclear arms, or Russia does intend on building back the USSR, Chavez spreads his idea of democracy through out South America or North Korea takes out its frustrations on South Korea or if what should be an insignificant "Islamic Fundamentalist Movement' becomes a major threat, or any of the problems in Africa become major, whats there to prevent this. The deterrence has to come from at least one place. Until the UN, EU or NATO can be that force, the US has to play protector of democracy.

[Moontanman]

On a less serious note, My favorite rock group has filed a injunction against McCain for using their song "Barracuda" by Heart, as his running mates theme song. Jackson Brown did the same thing a few months ago for using his song "Running on Empty" I guess the neocons think they can do anything after 8 years of Bush.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by jackson33

Thunderbird; Anti-war, pacifist or isolationism are common in all society, basing their opinions on many things, religion to politics and between.

If the person, is rooted in his/her country, its history or whatever you consider the the value of that country and can base that objection on those values, patriotism is not lost. If however you fear being drafted, knowing your ancestry had no choice or you not concerned for the future of your society, your descendent's, what could be become their (and your) place in not as you wish, or simply don't care what happens to others, then there is no love of country to begin with...

If Bush II had not gone into Iraq and Iraq had developed a bomb or if he had invaded Kuwait a second time, slowed or stopped the flow of oil, his son's killed off the remaining Kurd's or somehow the 'Worlds Economy' had crumbled, we would be discussing his incompetency. If Iran does achieve Nuclear arms, or Russia does intend on building back the USSR, Chavez spreads his idea of democracy through out South America or North Korea takes out its frustrations on South Korea or if what should be an insignificant "Islamic Fundamentalist Movement' becomes a major threat, or any of the problems in Africa become major, whats there to prevent this. The deterrence has to come from at least one place. Until the UN, EU or NATO can be that force, the US has to play protector of democracy.

1.There were no WMD's or yellow cake.. Bush Lied.

2.Saddam was in no position to invade Kuwait a second time, remember we had the support of the world, can you remember back that far?
3. You have list of what if's of possible disaster scenario’s they are only possible because of the invasion of Iraq.
4. The Bush administration has never ever been a protector of democracy quite the opposite. The free world would agree with me on these points.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Michaelangelica

I can't believe you yanks are going to let the Republicans screw you again.
What is it with you and illogical, old, doddery guys?

It is doddery old women. They constitute a major 'block' supporting McCain and they support McCain because they oppose Obama and they oppose Obama because he is black and they don't care that his mom is white because she is white trash for marrying a black man. Plain, and simple. Pushed to testify, some old women admit they're racist and then declare I'm sorry, but that's just the way I am. For all the honor & service I admired in my mother, I despised her racist ways. Shame on you old white women.

[jackson33]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

1.There were no WMD's or yellow cake.. Bush Lied.

2.Saddam was in no position to invade Kuwait a second time, remember we had the support of the world, can you remember back that far?
3. You have list of what ifs of possible disaster scenario’s they are only possible because of the invasion of Iraq.
4. The Bush administration has never ever been a protector of democracy quite the opposite. The free world would agree with me on these points.

3- 'What ifs'; This is why were not discussing one outcome, rather than another. We could do the same for attitudes in the 1930's, when the US sat around doing nothing. In the end millions of lives were lost, billions spent (trillions in todays dollar), basically because one little thug wanted power. I have listed the current crop of thugs...

1- Suggest you ask the Kurds if WMD were in Saddam's arsenal. Never the less, Bush, the US Congress, the Clinton Administration all had the same evidence to assume the assumption. Opinion; I have my doubts on nuclear weapons being available, but think more than one neighbor to Saddam would disagree.

2- So the US/Britain and the United Nations should have kept on being targets flying around the 'no fly zone', UN being ignored, allowing more and more innocents to be killed for say another hundred years. Somebody someday would have to make a decision and one person finally did...

4- You will have to specify a democratic country that the US is not under treaty with, that we would (what if) not defend, or does not agree with the American Foreign Policy. Some societies yes, but if troubled by one of those 'what ifs' guess who will get called on.