NationStates Jolt Archive

I did. It was rather good, I thought. It'll all be forgotten with tomarrow's job report, however. He hinted that it would be worse than expected. So much for such a great speech :(.

I did. It was rather good, I thought. It'll all be forgotten with tomarrow's job report, however. He hinted that it would be worse than expected. So much for such a great speech :(.
He got yelled at by protestors...three times?

He got yelled at by protestors...three times?
He did. I bet that damaged him, too. You see, swing voters live in bubble worlds. They seem oblivious to the fact that protesting is even legal, let alone that many protest Bush.

Much better than I expected, but then I had low expectations. Bush came across as the Good Cop to everyone else's Bad Cop. He actually discussed issues and new programs, he spent considerably less that 50% of his speech running down the opposition, and he actually had a couple of humorous moments. I may actually have to vote for him ...


Nah.

No but I did see Ahnold's, "Don't be an economic girly-man!" As well as the arrest of the protestors who got into the building, so much for a free country. They should have been removed yes, but not arrested.

No but I did see Ahnold's, "Don't be an economic girly-man!" As well as the arrest of the protestors who got into the building, so much for a free country. They should have been removed yes, but not arrested.
Bush makes you sign loyalty oaths to go in his conventions: at least his last two meetings have had them.

Much better than I expected, but then I had low expectations. Bush came across as the Good Cop to everyone else's Bad Cop. He actually discussed issues and new programs, he spent considerably less that 50% of his speech running down the opposition, and he actually had a couple of humorous moments. I may actually have to vote for him ...


Nah.
His joking side has come out once or twice before. I think he's learning to fine-tune it. In the (unfortunatly) unlikely event that Bush gets four more years, then Bush's command of the English language will not be misunderestimated again.

No but I did see Ahnold's, "Don't be an economic girly-man!" As well as the arrest of the protestors who got into the building, so much for a free country. They should have been removed yes, but not arrested.
*sigh*
What ever happened to the glory days of hecklers...ah, politics were so much better.

No but I did see Ahnold's, "Don't be an economic girly-man!" As well as the arrest of the protestors who got into the building, so much for a free country. They should have been removed yes, but not arrested.
I'm sure the Democrats had similar regulations. Then again, the right wing opposition has never been much for protesting. Did you see a 200,000 pro-war rally leading up to the Iraq war? That many fervorish supporters did exist, but they didn't protest. The right wing in the US rarely protested in the last 30 years.

I think the president accomplished tonight what John Kerry wasn't able to do. Instead of spending an hour in the past, he spent an hour in the future. He outlined issues he plans to put through the congress and issues that he's still fighting for. I don't agree with his proposed marriage amendment, but I think when it comes right down to it that Dubya's the man for the job.

By the way...in the convention hall, only delegates with credentials are allowed to be there. It's not an open forum. The protesters arrested were trespassing, and thus WERE breaking the law.

*sigh*
What ever happened to the glory days of hecklers...ah, politics were so much better.
Better yet, the days when Congressmen challenged eachother to duels. One guy actually clobbered another Congressman in the run up to the Civil War. He was in a coma for years.

I'm sure the Democrats had similar regulations. Then again, the right wing opposition has never been much for protesting. Did you see a 200,000 pro-war rally leading up to the Iraq war? That many fervorish supporters did exist, but they didn't protest. The right wing in the US rarely protested in the last 30 years.
So? We have the base for it (college students), and you really don't. But you do see right to life protestors at times, they are some of the worst and most violent in the US...

By the way...in the convention hall, only delegates with credentials are allowed to be there. It's not an open forum. The protesters arrested were trespassing, and thus WERE breaking the law.
But people have gotten in, WITH legitimate credentials, and protested. And gotten arrested.

But people have gotten in, WITH legitimate credentials, and protested. And gotten arrested.
Wonder how they pulled that off.

Outstanding speech.

So? We have the base for it (college students), and you really don't. But you do see right to life protestors at time, they are some of the worst and most violent in the US...
Yeah, but I can assure you that the vast majority of pro-life protestors are not violent. I've actually heard many tell me that these guys are one helluva contradiction they can't understand. I should know, as my church is swarming with them.
Then again, they come out only during government action on it, just like the rest of the traditional protesting groups: save the whales, legalize dope, love the earth, nuclear disarmament, etc. With the exception of the Christian fundementalists, I can't think of another right wing protest group.

Wonder how they pulled that off.
Ordering early.

I just flipped through the news channel, FOX declared the republicans the winner in falling balloons. Any edge, it would seem.......

(I'm not really reading too much into it, I just thought in context it was funny)

I seen it.. I did miss about 5 minutes when I went to make the baby her last night time bottle, it was okay, it was sort of boring. It should be a good speech he has it well down, I would of thought for a speech of this importance he would of come up with some new material, well besides the 15 new programs he talked about but failed to mention how he's going to pay for it. Turning the middle east into a democracy won't be cheap either, but that's ok, he's handing out tax cuts. He's going to stick your kids with the bill!.

At least he didn't stumble like he usually does and for that, I'll give him credit.

I'm waiting 20 more minutes to watch John Kerry's response, that should be fun!

Yeah, but I can assure you that the vast majority of pro-life protestors are not violent. I've actually heard many tell me that these guys are one helluva contradiction they can't understand. I should know, as my church is swarming with them.
Then again, they come out only during government action on it, just like the rest of the traditional protesting groups: save the whales, legalize dope, love the earth, nuclear disarmament, etc. With the exception of the Christian fundementalists, I can't think of another right wing protest group.
By nature, the pro-marijuana people are very mellow....

By nature, the pro-marijuana people are very mellow....
I didn't say they weren't mellow. They probably smoke enough pot to be mellow. I'm just saying that they are a traditional protest group. Those guys are as common in Washington as a streetlamp. Hell, they are the streetlamps.

Yeah, but I can assure you that the vast majority of pro-life protestors are not violent. I've actually heard many tell me that these guys are one helluva contradiction they can't understand. I should know, as my church is swarming with them.
Then again, they come out only during government action on it, just like the rest of the traditional protesting groups: save the whales, legalize dope, love the earth, nuclear disarmament, etc. With the exception of the Christian fundementalists, I can't think of another right wing protest group.
Of course, most aren't, but they tend to have a large number of nutjobs, and when was the last time a leftie protestor killed someone in the United States?

Of course, most aren't, but they tend to have a large number of nutjobs, and when was the last time a leftie protestor killed someone in the United States?
Can't remember. I admit we have guys like Eric Rudolph, and that guy that killed Dr. Barnett Slepian (what's his name again?). But violent anarchists exist in Europe, they just act in a mob. At least people can run from a mob, but not snipers.
What I could never get, however, were soccer riots. Why start a riot over something that is really quite trivial when you think about it? I mean, it's just a game. Then again, wars have been started for less.

Now, does anyone else feel Bush hinted to a weak job report for tommarow? The White House always knows this ahead of time, as it's their department of Labor making the report. I thought Bush was saying that we're doing little to create jobs in this country, and in the short term, that's a bad sign.
However, there are some good indicators. Productivity slowed dramatically. This means that employers are forced to hire more workers to get a job done. If it grows slower than the economy, jobs aren't created. However, I wonder if this productivity decline hasn't hit employers until now.

I think the president accomplished tonight what John Kerry wasn't able to do. Instead of spending an hour in the past, he spent an hour in the future. He outlined issues he plans to put through the congress and issues that he's still fighting for. I don't agree with his proposed marriage amendment, but I think when it comes right down to it that Dubya's the man for the job.

By the way...in the convention hall, only delegates with credentials are allowed to be there. It's not an open forum. The protesters arrested were trespassing, and thus WERE breaking the law.
when you go to a convention, you get a badge that says you can be there. I know this cause I've attended at least 2 of them. And you have to be a registered republican (or dem depending on which party is holding the convention.)

I'm sure the Democrats had similar regulations. Then again, the right wing opposition has never been much for protesting. Did you see a 200,000 pro-war rally leading up to the Iraq war? That many fervorish supporters did exist, but they didn't protest. The right wing in the US rarely protested in the last 30 years.


not necessarily a Kerry fan but he let people with dissenting opinions in, actually invted it at all of his campaign stops, caused some trouble.

What I could never get, however, were soccer riots. Why start a riot over something that is really quite trivial when you think about it? I mean, it's just a game. Then again, wars have been started for less.

A war was started over a soccer game. Nicaragua and Honduras, or some other central american nation. It was over a world cup in the 80's or something, i don't remeber.

Another war in South America was started by stamps.

Just so you know....

A war was started over a soccer game. Nicaragua and Honduras, or some other central american nation. It was over a world cup in the 80's or something, i don't remeber.

Another war in South America was started by stamps.

Just so you know....
Some crazy things happened in South America. I read somewhere that, in a time of anarchy in the seventies, the president of Peru was a can of foot powder.

Some crazy things happened in South America. I read somewhere that, in a time of anarchy in the seventies, the president of Peru was a can of foot powder.
A literal tin-pot (sorta) dictator.

Can't remember. I admit we have guys like Eric Rudolph, and that guy that killed Dr. Barnett Slepian (what's his name again?). But violent anarchists exist in Europe, they just act in a mob. At least people can run from a mob, but not snipers.
What I could never get, however, were soccer riots. Why start a riot over something that is really quite trivial when you think about it? I mean, it's just a game. Then again, wars have been started for less.


or for nothing, umm cough *Iraq* cough......since we have all but admitted that we "overstated" things.

or for nothing, umm cough *Iraq* cough......since we have all but admitted that we "overstated" things.
Even the opposition says there was a reason, honey. Just not one they agree with. Call the Iraq war many things, but it was not a fight just for the sake of fighting. Even much of the opposition says it was for a natural resource, oil.

or for nothing, umm cough *Iraq* cough......since we have all but admitted that we "overstated" things.


about the last comment, I didn't want to start a big war....It was kind of a inflammatory statement. SORRY

Outstanding speech.
That's an understatement. GW Bush hit a HomeRun of Mark McGwire proportions. After watching the speeches by Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Zell Miller, Dick Cheney, and Laura Bush, it was hard to envision GW delivering an equal or better speech, and yet he delivered the goods.

Even better, he did it with minimal references to Jean Francois Kerry, and with a look at the future.

about the last comment, I didn't want to start a big war....It was kind of a inflammatory statement. SORRY
No problemo. But even the opposition didn't say it was like a war in ancient Germany: the only reason for fighting was because of the adrenaline rush soldiers needed.

I'm waiting 20 more minutes to watch John Kerry's response, that should be fun!
I'll save you 20 minutes, here's Jean Francois Kerry's response:
I went to Vietnam!

That's an understatement. GW Bush hit a HomeRun of Mark McGwire proportions. After watching the speeches by Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Zell Miller, Dick Cheney, and Laura Bush, it was hard to envision GW delivering an equal or better speech, and yet he delivered the goods.

Even better, he did it with minimal references to Jean Francois Kerry, and with a look at the future.

It's MKULTRA's evil twin! :eek:

At least he didn't stumble like he usually does and for that, I'll give him credit.

Of course he didn't stumble, he was reading a pre-prepared speech. He's like Ronald Reagan in that respect - he's superb at reading a speech but God help him if he's put on the spot! Remember his soveignty blunder?
The debates will be interesting. I wonder if the repubs will try to back out?

That's an understatement. GW Bush hit a HomeRun of Mark McGwire proportions. After watching the speeches by Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Zell Miller, Dick Cheney, and Laura Bush, it was hard to envision GW delivering an equal or better speech, and yet he delivered the goods.

Even better, he did it with minimal references to Jean Francois Kerry, and with a look at the future.
True. I believe that the only speech of his career that can trump this is his emergency address to Congress on Sept. 20, 2001.

It's MKULTRA's evil twin! :eek:
Wow, that had the potential to be funny.

That's an understatement. GW Bush hit a HomeRun of Mark McGwire proportions. After watching the speeches by Rudy Giuliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Zell Miller, Dick Cheney, and Laura Bush, it was hard to envision GW delivering an equal or better speech, and yet he delivered the goods.

Even better, he did it with minimal references to Jean Francois Kerry, and with a look at the future.


he only mentioned one school that had been helped by his "reforms".....that doesn't mean something is working. If something is working you show a "x" amount of increase in all schools over the past four years.......anyone know how big this school is or the name of it so I can research it? I tried to remember what he said and can't remember the exact name. Again please ignore that ridiculous statement I just posted, it came out all wrong.

True. I believe that the only speech of his career that can trump this is his emergency address to Congress on Sept. 20, 2001.
True.

As far as convention speeches go, the best I have heard would have to be Colin Powell in 1996's GOP Convention.

Wow, that had the potential to be funny.

All that is true is not funny :D

Seriouisly though. The over-praise of the president, bordering on fellatio? The intense hatred for everything that stands against the two of you? The really, really, REALLY STUPID name calling with insults that arn't funny-and in fact, suck?

You're his evil twin alright.

I'll save you 20 minutes, here's Jean Francois Kerry's response:


of which republicans will yell, he only got shot AT, not actually SHOT....and wave their bandaids around. Doesn't sound like a whole lot of substance on either side now does it? Oh yeah and "we are a nation led by God so we can do whatever we want"

I seen it.. I did miss about 5 minutes when I went to make the baby her last night time bottle, it was okay, it was sort of boring. It should be a good speech he has it well down, I would of thought for a speech of this importance he would of come up with some new material, well besides the 15 new programs he talked about but failed to mention how he's going to pay for it. Turning the middle east into a democracy won't be cheap either, but that's ok, he's handing out tax cuts. He's going to stick your kids with the bill!.

By their nature, most of the programs he outlined either tax reforms, or oppritunities for tax shelters. He did not mention that much in the way of programs that'd warrant a tax increase. It certainly isn't like Kerry's promises. "The Rich" simply can't cover $2 trillion more in the government.

All that is true is not funny :D

Seriouisly though. The over-praise of the president, bordering on fellatio? The intense hatred for everything that stands against the two of you? The really, really, REALLY STUPID name calling with insults that arn't funny-and in fact, suck?

You're his evil twin alright.
Hmmm, shall we really entertain this? The baseless accusations, the gutter language, the blatant grammar and spelling faults, the massive number of posts in a short amount of time...

I think we have found MKULTRA's Mini-Me...if you want to know who that is, go look at a mirror.

Considering the context, it wasn't a great speech but I did laugh out loud when he said people accuse him of swaggering.........'what we in Texas call.........walking'. Those two conventions must have cost hundreds of millions just to restate what we already know.

Jean Francois Kerry's
Oh joy, I take it this is the next wave of attack on John Kerry. To 'wittily' alter his name to it's French equivalent. Wow. how incredibly droll and waggish of you sir. I bet you needed a well-earned rest after coming up with that particular bon mot. That is assuming you thought of it and aren't just parroting what you saw on a repub. website. Naw, you wouldn't be that sheep-like now would you?

BTW considering that the majority of speeches at the Repub convention were attacks on John Kerry (coupled with 'purple-heart bandaids'), I wonder if FOX will call this one a 'Hatefest'? I won't hold my breath.

"I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch."
---Watches as America shows uncertainty in Iraq, and the world drifts toward tragedy with North Korea's unabated nuclear research, not to mention the Chechnyan conflict...and African genocide...need I go on? Mayhaps we need to look at the real world issues instead of creating new ones?

"The American people deserve -- and our economic future demands -- _ a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code."
-----------------I.E. More Tax cuts...which means more deficits. Of course, as a Republican I always expected the party to cut the deficit, not add to it. Reagan was brilliant at this, saw that the main body of investors were tied into too many taxes, cut them, and watched the money pool free up. However, todays situation is different, the rich have tens to hundreds of times as much as they did back then, and eventually giving them tax breaks leaves them with nothing to spend money on. I also love the lack of detail, just the fact that we deserve it!

"We will always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge baby boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account -- a nest egg you can call your own and government can never take away."

----How does that strengthen it? This is one thing where the party line has gotten out of hand. Social Security needs reform alright...but not privatization. We need to get smarter in who needs benefits, and what those benefits should be. We don't need to this.

"Our nation is standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, because when America gives its word, America must keep its word. As importantly, we are serving a vital and historic cause that will make our country safer. Free societies in the Middle East will be hopeful societies, which no longer feed resentments and breed violence for export."

-----Unfortunately that is what their culture produces, they do not know democracy, it does not fit them. Furthermore we still haven't solved the Kurdish problem, nor the Sunni/Shi'ite problem. We were in the right with Afghanistan, whether we can redeem our actions in Iraq by building a stable government shall need time to tell.

"This moment in the life of our country will be remembered. Generations will know if we kept our faith and kept our word. Generations will know if we seized this moment, and used it to build a future of safety and peace. The freedom of many, and the future security of our nation, now depend on us. And tonight, my fellow Americans, I ask you to stand with me."

------Again the party line is starting to sound a bit too born again for my liking. Kept our faith in what? Blind obedience to what we are told? That is not a republican virtue. Conservatism isn't about "seizing the moment" it is about calmly and correctly guiding our nation to its proper course, not trying to force it where we want it.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Highlights from President Bush's acceptance speech

The Associated Press
Thursday, September 2, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(09-02) 20:46 PDT (AP) --

Some highlights from President Bush's acceptance speech Thursday night at the Republican National Convention:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people. If America shows uncertainty and weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The American people deserve -- and our economic future demands -- _ a simpler, fairer, pro-growth system. In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We will always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge baby boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account -- a nest egg you can call your own and government can never take away."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our nation is standing with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, because when America gives its word, America must keep its word. As importantly, we are serving a vital and historic cause that will make our country safer. Free societies in the Middle East will be hopeful societies, which no longer feed resentments and breed violence for export."


"In the last four years, you and I have come to know each other. Even when we don't agree, at least you know what I believe and where I stand. You may have noticed I have a few flaws, too. People sometimes have to correct my English -- I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger started doing it. Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called 'walking."'

----Unfortunately I still don't. You walked in in 2000 saying gay marriage was a state issue, your vice-President even stating that in debate. Now you make it a political issue. You said you would protect social security. Now you want to privatize it. You pledged to keep down the deficit, instead I see you planning on making it larger. You pledged to make America stronger internationally, instead I see our alliances tumbling down. Where is the consistency therein?


"About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in Iraq. And I deeply appreciate the courage and wise counsel of leaders like Prime Minister Howard, and President Kwasniewski, and Prime Minister Berlusconi -- and, of course, Prime Minister Tony Blair. Again, my opponent takes a different approach. In the midst of war, he has called America's allies, quote, a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed."

-------Here is a nice swipe by the President, not such a positive message as I hoped he would preach. These types of things are not what America needs.

"...In those military families, I have seen the character of a great nation: decent, and idealistic, and strong. The world saw that spirit three miles from here, when the people of this city faced peril together, and lifted a flag over the ruins, and defied the enemy with their courage. My fellow Americans, for as long as our country stands, people will look to the resurrection of New York City and they will say: Here buildings fell, and here a nation rose."

-------But not strongly enough against our true enemy! Today we had more people protecting the city of New York during its convention than we had searching to find Osama bin Laden. We had more police in New York, than troops in Afghanistan. When I see our military families, I see families that need the work all too often, those with no other choice, those who need it to give them other choices later in life.



I'm afraid I found this speech all the more depressing after the handful of moderates the party has left had spoken such bland party lines. Honestly, of all the people we needed to truly get out their message, Romney, McCain, and the rest of the Moderates were the ones we should have been listening to. What do we get from the President himself? Bold statements about things that have to happen...often at the expense of the future economy, or completely undetailed and fruitless. I am losing hope that we may win this election, so long as we fail to move the line closer to the middle. If we don't...well...I can't see myself, or any other Republican Moderate, in the party this time next election.

Jean Francois Kerry's


Wait...
Would that make him...

JFK?

lol!

JFK FOR PRESIDENT!

This jobs report all but seals Bush's loss, I'm sad to say:
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/ap20040903_753.html
Not that anyone ever paid attention to other key indicators, like GDP growth, or the unexpected rise in durable goods orders.

How does the addition of 144,000 jobs and then an addition of 40,000 more to the number of July alone and the further June reivison (making the total new jobs number about 200,000) seal Bush's loss? At 200,000 a month, we're looking at a net jobs increase albeit by a small amount.

No but I did see Ahnold's, "Don't be an economic girly-man!" As well as the arrest of the protestors who got into the building, so much for a free country. They should have been removed yes, but not arrested.

Should they be arrested if they get into a Knicks game without a ticket?

How does the addition of 144,000 jobs and then an addition of 40,000 more to the number of July alone and the further June reivison (making the total new jobs number about 200,000) seal Bush's loss? At 200,000 a month, we're looking at a net jobs increase albeit by a small amount.
I know it's good news, but swing voters are stupid. They focus on the here and now, and certainly not on the actual number. They celebrate even if it is one job above, but start rolling heads if it is one job below.

I know it's good news, but swing voters are stupid. They focus on the here and now, and certainly not on the actual number. They celebrate even if it is one job above, but start rolling heads if it is one job below.
Bush was advancing in the polls (slightly) before this report came out, and that was with the last report being the weak (although now revised) July report. I don't think this seals the deal. :)

A war was started over a soccer game. Nicaragua and Honduras, or some other central american nation. It was over a world cup in the 80's or something, i don't remeber.

Another war in South America was started by stamps.

Just so you know....

The "Soccer War" was fought between El Salvador and Honduras. It wasn't really over a soccer game, though. There were long-standing border disputes and resentment over 300,000 El Salvadorans moving to Honduras and taking jobs away from the Hondurans. The soccer game was just a trigger, the "straw that broke the camel's back" so to speak. The war left 3,000 dead, 6,000 wounded and caused $50 million in damage.

I'll save you 20 minutes, here's Jean Francois Kerry's response:

John Forbes Kerry..

Bush was advancing in the polls (slightly) before this report came out, and that was with the last report being the weak (although now revised) July report. I don't think this seals the deal. :)
I hope you're right. I'm just trying to find ways I think Bush can loose, because I want to feel comfortable with a Kerry Administration. But if I get my way, Kerry and administration will never appear in the same sentence again.

he only mentioned one school that had been helped by his "reforms".....that doesn't mean something is working. If something is working you show a "x" amount of increase in all schools over the past four years.......anyone know how big this school is or the name of it so I can research it? I tried to remember what he said and can't remember the exact name. Again please ignore that ridiculous statement I just posted, it came out all wrong.

It was a convention speech, dude. No one goes into dry legislative and statistical issues in a convention speech. It was boring enough as it was, without doing that.

I thought it was an okay presentation, with above average content. I agree with some other posters here that, as far as content is concerned, Bush did what he needed to do. He should get a decent bump in the polls out of it.

I have never seen him speak. When he was "elected" in 2000, I made a vow that I would never listen to him speak. I have held to that vow. I've never watched a State of the Union, never listened to a radio address, and have barely even paid attention to snippets of him on the news.

I do not recognize that he is my President and I barely recognize his right to breathe. The only speech I will watch is the speech he makes when he leaves office. I will watch that speech with bourbon, popcorn, and a great big smile on my face.

If he's re-elected, I will go four more years of ignoring him.

I'm sure the Democrats had similar regulations. Then again, the right wing opposition has never been much for protesting. Did you see a 200,000 pro-war rally leading up to the Iraq war? That many fervorish supporters did exist, but they didn't protest. The right wing in the US rarely protested in the last 30 years.
you are correct. The last time the conservative right protested was against civil rights legislation and affirmative action intiatives......kinda makes ya wonder about the politics of conservative right :headbang:

you are correct. The last time the conservative right protested was against civil rights legislation and affirmative action intiatives......kinda makes ya wonder about the politics of conservative right :headbang:
That was, of course, thirty years ago, before the left started taking the role as the protesting party.

you are correct. The last time the conservative right protested was against civil rights legislation and affirmative action intiatives......kinda makes ya wonder about the politics of conservative right :headbang:

If you want to be around for more than three posts here, you should learn history better.

Those that protested civil rights legislation were southern Democrats, or "Dixiecrats." People like George Wallace and Robert "KKK" Byrd. Civil rights legislation would never have passed without the support of conservative Republicans.

Mr. Bush's speech was excellent in all regards. I give him high praise. Interestingly enough, this convention will actualy show a poll bounce......unlike some others! Mr. kerry also had a rally yesterday in which he said the president "misled us into war". so when Kerry called for war with iraq in 1998, 1999, and 2001 ( never mind voting for in in 2002) was'nt he doing the same thing? He met or topped all of the pro-war rhetoric of Bush, Clinton, and Cheney. so I am left to ask. What is he talking about?

I didn't. I figured, "Why bother?"

Bush sucks. Kerry sucks.

'Nuff said!

If you want to be around for more than three posts here, you should learn history better.

Those that protested civil rights legislation were southern Democrats, or "Dixiecrats." People like George Wallace and Robert "KKK" Byrd. Civil rights legislation would never have passed without the support of conservative Republicans.

George Wallace never joined the Dixiecrats.

Then again, the right wing opposition has never been much for protesting. Did you see a 200,000 pro-war rally leading up to the Iraq war? That many fervorish supporters did exist, but they didn't protest. The right wing in the US rarely protested in the last 30 years.

rightwingers only have one protest topic, abortion. on f15 (largest protest in human history) we had some counter-protestors out too; about 70 to our 2000 - this was in northern wisconsin. more than half of them had anti-abortion signs, apparently oblivious to the fact that they were counter-protesting an anti-war rally. one attended by some rather prominent catholic groups, i might add. which would technically make their protest pro-war, and all the death and suffering that entails. basically, they just came off as being a little dim.

If you want to be around for more than three posts here, you should learn history better.

Those that protested civil rights legislation were southern Democrats, or "Dixiecrats." People like George Wallace and Robert "KKK" Byrd. Civil rights legislation would never have passed without the support of conservative Republicans.

the post didn't say 'conservative republicans', it said 'conservative right'. southern democrats by and large were the conservative right who also happened to be part of the new deal coalition. but they held their conservative racist asshole ideals a bit more strongly than their comitment to new deal policies. that's why they broke with the coalition multiple times over the issue of race and in general being a bunch of cultural reactionaries, eventually leading to the final break where they joined the republican party as its wacky authoritarian conservative fundamentalist wing. they have always been the conservative right, they just switched parties and their new party bows to their wishes a lot more than the old one did.

A clever thing that King George did in his speech was equate Saddam with WMD's. This might go over well with some undecided voters, but I know better...

...Hi BTW...

How does the addition of 144,000 jobs and then an addition of 40,000 more to the number of July alone and the further June reivison (making the total new jobs number about 200,000) seal Bush's loss? At 200,000 a month, we're looking at a net jobs increase albeit by a small amount.
This part of the article alone suggests that the "tax cut" that was supposed to create an additional 5,000,000 jobs, not only failed but that the economy just isn't creating enough jobs to even keep pace with new entrants to the workforce:

Bush says his tax cuts have helped the economy rebound and that making those tax cuts permanent will spur more job creation. Kerry contends Bush's policies benefit the wealthy, squeeze the middle class and aren't producing significant job growth.

The economy has lost 913,000 jobs since Bush took office.

rightwingers only have one protest topic, abortion.
It's not that we don't feel like protesting these issues. We don't want to. That's because the right wing has never had a gem from the left wing: the victim complex. If we gain this, we can have protests for other things, like Social Security reform, or tax cuts. The left pretty much has a monopoly here.

This part of the article alone suggests that the "tax cut" that was supposed to create an additional 5,000,000 jobs, not only failed but that the economy just isn't creating enough jobs to even keep pace with new entrants to the workforce:

Bush says his tax cuts have helped the economy rebound and that making those tax cuts permanent will spur more job creation. Kerry contends Bush's policies benefit the wealthy, squeeze the middle class and aren't producing significant job growth.

The economy has lost 913,000 jobs since Bush took office.
So is the job loss Bush's fault?

Hmmm, shall we really entertain this? The baseless accusations, the gutter language, the blatant grammar and spelling faults, the massive number of posts in a short amount of time...

I think we have found MKULTRA's Mini-Me...if you want to know who that is, go look at a mirror.

It was a JOKE. NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

And...wait, massive amount of posts in a short time? ONOES, I've debated!

So is the job loss Bush's fault?

I don't think you can have it both ways. If Georgie can take the credit for job rises, he can take them for job losses. Or not make claim on either of them. By the way, I don't agree that 'swing' voters are stupid. Maybe they think a bit more before making up their minds rather than simply follow the herd.

I don't think you can have it both ways. If Georgie can take the credit for job rises, he can take them for job losses. Or not make claim on either of them. By the way, I don't agree that 'swing' voters are stupid. Maybe they think a bit more before making up their minds rather than simply follow the herd.
That's not their nature. The swing voters are usually soccer moms, senior citizens, and the hard-core blue collar workers. They vote for who makes the best promises, or even things outside a candidate's control, like inflation.
And btw, there is a way we can have it both ways. The job loss was a result of a bubble burst, and on top of that, very few countries have unemployment as low as we did. This is a result of, essentially, dumping money into the system, in the form of tax cuts. Works all the time in a time of little innovation.

the republican party as its wacky authoritarian conservative fundamentalist wing. they have always been the conservative right, they just switched parties and their new party bows to their wishes a lot more than the old one did.
Actually, a lot of the hardcore Dixiecrats didn't switch parties. People like Fritz Hollings, Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd - they were all Democrats. People like Strom Thurmond did, but that was because he didn't want to be known as a racist and became the first Southern senator to have an integrated staff.

Actually, a lot of the hardcore Dixiecrats didn't switch parties. People like Fritz Hollings, Al Gore Sr., Robert Byrd - they were all Democrats. People like Strom Thurmond did, but that was because he didn't want to be known as a racist and became the first Southern senator to have an integrated staff.
Yes, which is why I find it all the funnier that so many blacks register as Democrats. Must have something to do with their endless supply of populists.

The economy has lost 913,000 jobs since Bush took office.[/i]

Really? That's a much lower number than I would have expected.

Really? That's a much lower number than I would have expected.
That's because we've been gradually gaining jobs here. If it weren't for the tech bubble happening, actually, 5.4% would be the lowest ever unemployment rate since WWII.

People like Strom Thurmond did, but that was because he didn't want to be known as a racist and became the first Southern senator to have an integrated staff.

Not to mention his daughter! ;)

That's because we've been gradually gaining jobs here. If it weren't for the tech bubble happening, actually, 5.4% would be the lowest ever unemployment rate since WWII.
Not quite. Unemployment rates have been down as low as 3.4 in the late 60's, and 5.0 in the 80's.

However, the participation rate is far more important, and that has been sliding since late 2000.

Not quite. Unemployment rates have been down as low as 3.4 in the late 60's, and 5.0 in the 80's.

However, the participation rate is far more important, and that has been sliding since late 2000.
I'm not really surprised by this. The first of the baby boomers are entering into early retirement. In 2000, those born in 1946 would have been 54. A decent amount would've retire early, especially since many boomers are rich. Of course, we'll see an accelarating decline in the workforce come 2008, when the first boomers reach retirement age.

I'm not really surprised by this. The first of the baby boomers are entering into early retirement. In 2000, those born in 1946 would have been 54. A decent amount would've retire early, especially since many boomers are rich. Of course, we'll see an accelarating decline in the workforce come 2008, when the first boomers reach retirement age.

Which is why most western countries need immigration, like it or not.

Which is why most western countries need immigration, like it or not.
I like it, but I don't think it'll come fast enough. The Census Bureau estimates that the US will grow to 450 million by 2050, up from 280 million in 2000. But that's a long cry away from the 150% growth between 1950-2000, and we had far fewer retired people to support. That's why I'm in favor of Social Security reform of some sort.

Here in GB, we've been through this already. Several years ago, the State Earned Related Pensions Scheme (SERPS), which is the government pension paid out of a life-times taxes, was about to be slowly phased out. The personal finance act freed up insurance companies to sell private pensions which are not tax deductable, much like Bush proposed last night, his 'nest egg'. Unfortunately, it now seems that the private pensions will be nowhere near enough to support people. Government pensions, by right to all people, are still the order of the day. At the moment, the government, instead of attempting another large change, is tinkering around to cushion us over the next couple of decades. After that...........who knows?

I have never seen him speak. When he was "elected" in 2000, I made a vow that I would never listen to him speak. I have held to that vow. I've never watched a State of the Union, never listened to a radio address, and have barely even paid attention to snippets of him on the news.

I do not recognize that he is my President and I barely recognize his right to breathe. The only speech I will watch is the speech he makes when he leaves office. I will watch that speech with bourbon, popcorn, and a great big smile on my face.

If he's re-elected, I will go four more years of ignoring him.

Wow. Way to keep your mind open to other points of view.
I'm sure that helps keep balance in your political viewpoint.

Here in GB, we've been through this already. Several years ago, the State Earned Related Pensions Scheme (SERPS), which is the government pension paid out of a life-times taxes, was about to be slowly phased out. The personal finance act freed up insurance companies to sell private pensions which are not tax deductable, much like Bush proposed last night, his 'nest egg'. Unfortunately, it now seems that the private pensions will be nowhere near enough to support people. Government pensions, by right to all people, are still the order of the day. At the moment, the government, instead of attempting another large change, is tinkering around to cushion us over the next couple of decades. After that...........who knows?
Private nest eggs are probably better, as they can be sheltered in IRAs in the US. Taxes are only payed upon withdrawl, and that tends to be cheaper. Besides, there's a whole lot of investment options. Mutual funds, for example, tend to be extremely safe for any investor, but almost always have a comfortable degree of growth.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/ssps/ssp7.html
This professor, Martin Feldstein, argues for it. He may very well be the next Fed Chairman.

Wow. Way to keep your mind open to other points of view.
I'm sure that helps keep balance in your political viewpoint.

Since this person is so "well versed and educated" in Bush and his politics, they have a right to even express an opinion? :headbang:

I was there, in Madison Square Garden...wasn't very impressed

I thought the speech was excellent. My dad feel asleep during it, but he does that all the time. Bush did what he needed to do: provide a plan and state his positions, even if all of his party did not always agree with him. I didn't like him referring to Kerry, but it is necessary in a political race to compare yourself to your opponent, and Bush kept it down to a minimum.
He did stutter a couple of times, but that was usually when he was interrupted by applause. At least he acknowledged his occasional verbal slip-ups, so hopefully people will stop bashing him for how he speaks.