Anyone else find it a little troubling that the GOP is holding the RNC in New York and making frequent reference to the September 11 attacks? Maybe it's just me, but this strikes me as being in poor taste, an obvious exploitation of the 9/11 attacks for political gain.

I grasp that Bush wants to cast himself as a strong leader, and referring to the leadership he demonstrated post 9/11 is an effective way to do that, but the reports of what is going on up there really leave a sick taste in my mouth and an empty space in my gut. I think there is a way to accomplish what he wants to accomplish without being quite so overt.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I'd be really interested to see what some of the board members from NYC think...

I guess I can see your point, but really the RNC is almost always held in NYC. Its just the way of it.

Besides, if Bush was really looking for the most fervent crowd possible, he would have held it in Dallas.

[quote=Civic_Zen]I guess I can see your point, but really the RNC is almost always held in NYC. Its just the way of it.
[/quote]

Actually, this is the first time in the history of the Republican party that the RNC has been held in NYC. NYC is considered a Democrat stronghold -- it probably isn't generally viewed as an appropriate place for the convention.

Actually I dont believe it is bad taste at all to reference 9/11. Would you like to act like it never happened...maybe not talk about it for a decade? This is the number 1 issue of the current election...homeland security. Bottom line, I think that sometimes people forget that it is the worst terror act on american soil. Lets not forget what were up against, it is the presidents duty during this convention to clearly spell out his agenda and talk about the policies he has set forth, foreign policy + homeland security=9/11. Lets not run from the real issues here.

[quote=neur0t0xin64]Actually I dont believe it is bad taste at all to reference 9/11. [/quote]

I'm not talking about referencing 9/11 -- I agree with you that it is an issue and should be discussed. What I'm talking about are the 9/11 "tributes" and things of the like that seem more directed at reliving the past than looking toward the future.

[quote=neur0t0xin64]This is the number 1 issue of the current election...homeland security.[/quote]

Is it really? Hear me out before you react...

Homeland security is a major issue, which is rightfully on the mind of every American. Does it matter to Americans? Damn right it does. I happen to think, however, that as an [b]election issue[/b], it is not as significant an issue as you might think, i.e., there is not a real difference between the way the candidates would handle the issue. I don't think that any right-thinking person sincerely believes that if John Kerry is elected, terrorists are going to be ignored or that it will become open season on the US any more than it already is. I would expect any American leader to go after terrorists -- for those of you that consider Iraq to be a part of the war on terror, recall that Kerry indicated that he still would have gone in, even knowing there were no WMDs. Kerry has been pretty careful about not being overly critical of Bush for anything relating to HS. There may be some relatively insubstantial differences in how things would be handled, but nothing dramatic that I'm aware of...

So with no significant difference in the candidates on the homeland security issue, is it really an "election issue?" Bush certainly suggests that there are large differences, but he never really comes out and says what they are, and I imagine HS's status as an "election issue" will depend upon how successfully he can convince people that there really is a big difference between the candidates on this point.

If he ultimately fails, and voters are forced to make their decision on other criteria, is HS really an "election issue" as such? I would argue that it is not...

Homeland security is related to foreign policy. The candidates differ greatlly when it comes to foreign policy. Iraq is a Homeland Security issue in my opinion, as is our action with the entire middle eastern region. Our stance there reflects our proactive approach towards future problems that would have related to homeland security in the future.

Slightly off topic, but i don't see any similarity between the candidates in relation to homeland security.

And i don't think Kerry would have gone after terrorists in the way that Bush has, he would have sent the little blue helmets. Whoa, now that's frightening to the terrorists. :roll:

Almost cliche at this point, but i love this phrase..."Who do you think terrorists want to win the election?"

The RNC is being held in NYC for 1 reason...to dance on the graves of the people who died in the WTC. Bush even wanted to go to a fire house and watch the convention from there. It's despicable. It's disrupting our lives for cheap sentimentality.

honeybearkelly your disingenuous comments are making me feel like your more of a liberal jackass (oops i mean donkey, sorry) than a honey bear. go rock paul van dyk or something! toasty, if your sitting here telling me that bush and kerry would attack terrorism the same way then your more out of touch with reality and politics then I had suspected. despite your mostly intelligent comments and debates, your out of the galaxy on this one friend. tell me toasty honestly...after you saw gulliani rip kerry a new asshole, do you want to retract that statement? kerry has said numerous times that he would treat the conflict more delicately, he would combat terrorism more sensitively!

[url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/usatoday/20040813/ts_usatoday/cheneyslamskerryssensitivewarplea[/url]

not just that but kerry, never ever in his career able to make up his mind voted for an 87 billion dollar increase in funding for the troops in Iraq before voting against it. check it out for yourself. [url]http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040813-123218-4733r.htm[/url]

c'mon toasty your boy kerry is a pussy. i could not even in a nightmare imagine kerry as our commander in chief. this guy is in bed with ultra liberal france and bases his policy on foreign opinion! there is nothing even remotely similar at all about the aggresive and resolute actions and long term scope of the bush doctrine, and kerry's visceral inability and lack of chuzpa(balls)! this is undeniable.

its simple you dont have to make up your mind when others do it for ya. But again... Kerry is still unprepared even after the DNC proving he doesn't have the competence to lead us forward. :Rolling:

[quote="toasty"][quote=neur0t0xin64]This is the number 1 issue of the current election...homeland security.[/quote]

Is it really? Hear me out before you react...

Homeland security is a major issue, which is rightfully on the mind of every American. Does it matter to Americans? Damn right it does. I happen to think, however, that as an [b]election issue[/b], it is not as significant an issue as you might think, i.e., there is not a real difference between the way the candidates would handle the issue.

hmmm hmmm hmmmm, shame on you toasty. shame on you. hahahahahah 'this is not as significant an issue as you might think' toasty dont you realize that one major terrorist attack can paralize the nation with fear and drive a sledgehammer in our economy. jeeezus, your far out friend. heres the truth:

[url]http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241[/url]

is this REALLY the guy we want to defend us??? a guy who doesnt even show up for intelligence hearings??? im outraged and the american public should be too. i want a president that leads with clarity, and president BUSH fits the bill. say what you want about BUSH but he walks the talk...bottom line.

neur0t0xin64 you just put me in research mode. Also as a New Yorker I must tell you that Giuliani was more hated here than bad TV reception. I mean everybody hated him. The NYPD held more demonstrations in front of City Hall than all the other city unions. 9/11 saved his political life.

I'm going completely off-topic, but..... ;)

[quote=Jenks]Almost cliche at this point, but i love this phrase..."Who do you think terrorists want to win the election?"[/quote]

To be honest, I don't think they give a shit. Don't give them more credit than they deserve when it comes to adept political analysis...

What are the 2 major issues that terrorist groups have against the US now?

1. US occupation of Iraq
2. US support of Israel

Kerry is actually talking about putting [b]more[/b] troops in Iraq than there currently are. In regards to Israel, no administration is going to waver in their financial, military, and diplomatic support of Israel. If terrorists are keeping up with the specific positions of the candidates (which is a big IF since your average American voter probably doesn't know more than party affiliation and what is said in 30-second TV spots), then both candidates would probably be seen as an equivalent evil.

Unfortunately, I find the biggest terrorist threats to be to US interests abroad. Oil production in Saudi Arabia is a major target which could prove very troublesome for the US - financially. The same threat exists for any major oil-producing country. The panama canal (as Civic_Zen mentioned awhile back) would also be a major target outside of the continental US which could cause serious financial troubles for the US. These aren't exactly issues that the US can solve with unilateral military might. If anything, securing these interests depends on the other countries' willingness to work with the US.

The major "battlegrounds" in the war on terrorism - Afghanistan, Iraq (now a problem) - are already underway and not much about those will change no matter who is elected. There isn't going to be another Afghanistan where terrorists run free to train, aided by the government. I don't see another Iraq where there is the threat of deadly weapons being developed and sold to terrorists (not a threat that I personally believed in that case, but was used as a major justification for invasion). What is left is fighting the small groups in countries like Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Spain, Germany, Philippines, Russia, Indonesia, etc, etc, etc, who are threats to US interests outside of its borders. This requires cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement personel in the US and these countries. There is no way around it.

Kerry [b]wants[/b] people to think that he is the guy who will cooperate with the world community and that Bush is going to just be bull-headed about it. The fact is that Kerry is not going to be as apt to cooperate with other nations as he wants people to believe, and Bush isn't going to have the diplomatic ability to be as bull-headed and unilateral as is painted. Both will have to cooperate with other countries, but neither is going to do it enough to be as effective as they could.

In that sense, I don't see much difference between the candidates on homeland security. IMO, the US will be equally secure from attacks within its borders under either. Afghanistan will be an equal mess under either. The mess in Iraq will be equally minimized under either. US interests abroad will be equally at risk under either. Bush may have been the clear-cut better man to handle the Afghanistan situation and the first 2 years after 9/11, but it's a whole different game now. Bush or Kerry? It's a toss-up.

Sorry to go waaaay offtopic. ;) To answer the original question....

Bush's strongest point with the American public is how the handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Personal feelings on the tastefulness of it aside, I think it is a very smart political move to hold the RNC in NYC and constantly remind people of it. They win points on strategy, even if they lose a few on tact. ;)

honeybear im a former new yorker also (brooklyn-bayridge) and i dont disagree with what you said about 9/11 saving Gulliani. But the fact is Gulliani is know as the mayor that cleaned up New York, made it safer and sent alot of people to jail to pay for their crimes. But hes still a moderate republican and dont be surprised to see him on the republican ticket in 4 years. Anyhow I look forward to some good debates with you in the future, happy to see now you will do some research to base your opinions from-I respect that. Krelm-r u kidding me? John Kerry said hes sending MORE troops to Iraq????!! hahahahahahhaah your silly, partner..his main message for his campaign platform has been to bring troops home??? R u smoking crack man?? seriously?? r u?? [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-08-oppose_x.htm[/url]

or maybe I should reference you here:HEADLINE: KERRY VOWS TO BRING TROOPS HOME! [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040804/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_dc[/url]

Krelm your losing credibility by the milli second. you say Kerry would fight the war on terrorism the same huh?? The most apparent contrast between the president and Kerry, is that Kerry believes that seeking out the terrorists where they lay their head and taking an offensive, proactive position in rooting out terrorists where they train is encouraging more terror acts and essentially makes us less secure as a nation. Now you answer me this? Is that what you believe?

Dood, you really do crack me up. Sometimes I just can't tell if you are serious or not, but I'm afraid you actually are. :Naughty:

[quote=neur0t0xin64]Krelm-r u kidding me? John Kerry said hes sending MORE troops to Iraq????!! hahahahahahhaah your silly, partner..his main message for his campaign platform has been to bring troops home??? R u smoking crack man?? seriously?? r u?? [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-08-08-oppose_x.htm[/url] [/quote]

Did you actually read the articles that you link to, partner? First, the USA Today article. First, to quote:

[i]...to end their mission successfully and bring them home as soon as possible. [/i]

This is more or less the same line that the Bush administration is singing. Successfully complete the job in Iraq and bring the troops home. "As soon as possible" doesn't mean an immediate mass pullout (see Spain). "End their mission successfully" certainly doesn't sound like he is in any sort of a rush to pull troops from Iraq. It means they are going to be there for an indefinite amount of time. Notice there is no timeline given [b]whatsoever[/b]. Kerry wants to get American soldiers home. Bush wants to get American soldiers home. Both are going to leave them there until the job is finished. Period. Nowhere in that article does it say, or even hint otherwise.

Digging further....

[i]Lead NATO to make the security of Iraq one of its global missions and to deploy a significant portion of the force needed to secure and win the peace there. NATO participation will open the door to greater international involvement from non-NATO countries.[/i]

Here, he is stating that he wants further international involvement. Once again, no mention of pulling out troops. He wants more nations involved in getting the job done, which is exactly what Bush has been asking for from day one. Getting NATO help sure doesn't seem like pulling troops from Iraq.

Again, where does it anywhere state that Kerry is going to reduce the number of troops in Iraq in the short term? It's not part of his platform - that's been clear from day one. It was even more clear when at the DNC there were no anti-war references in any speeches and no anti-war posters, shirts, etc were even allowed on the floor.

Now on to the Yahoo! article.
[quote] or maybe I should reference you here:HEADLINE: KERRY VOWS TO BRING TROOPS HOME! [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040804/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_dc[/url] [/quote] Did you even bother to read the entire headline? The [b]actual[/b] headline is: "Kerry Vows to Bring U.S. Troops Home [b]'With Honor'[/b]"

You see, you left out the...uh..."With Honor" part and it sort of completely changed the meaning of what was written. Tricky one, you are. :wink:

If you actually read the article instead of taking the first part of the title out of context, you will see that the whole statement is

1. a blatant rip-off of a Nixon campaign pledge regarding Vietnam (Kerry bringing up Vietnam [b]again[/b]? Nahhhh).
2. Is in direct reference to building relationships with other countries.
3. Has [b]nothing[/b] to do with actually getting the troops out of Iraq. Just rebuilding international relationships so that the troops leave "with honor".

In other words, it's a bunch of horseshit with no real meaning or bearing on policy or reality. It certainly wasn't any sort of an indication that he was going to reduce the troop presence in Iraq, whether you take it at face value or not. It's typical political cheerleading, nothing more.

And actually, to quote a past Kerry speech I managed to dig up,

[i]In the short-term, however, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them. [/i] (taken from a transcript at an April 30 speech at Westminster College - [url]http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=29697[/url] - scroll about 2/3 down in the article)

That certainly doesn't sound like he is going to pull out troops. No, in fact, Kerry is quite obviously no more apt to speed the troops' returns home faster than Bush. Under either of these two tossers, Iraq is going to be an occupied country for years. That should be blatantly obvious.

[quote]Krelm your losing credibility by the milli second. you say Kerry would fight the war on terrorism the same huh?? The most apparent contrast between the president and Kerry, is that Kerry believes that seeking out the terrorists where they lay their head and taking an offensive, proactive position in rooting out terrorists where they train is encouraging more terror acts and essentially makes us less secure as a nation. Now you answer me this? Is that what you believe?[/quote]

What the hell are you blathering on about man? Where the hell does Kerry state that? The only thing I can find which maybe is [b]remotely[/b] related is that Kerry favors a "global consensus" over pre-emption. That's a far cry from saying that Kerry doesn't want to seek out terrorists. He still wants to root out the terrorists, but he is saying that he wants to work with other countries rather than bullying them as was the case with Iraq.

At least, that is his official line....

Which, had you bothered to read what I wrote above (you are good at taking things out of context, eh?), it would be clear that I feel is a load of shit. Kerry is going to be as much an international "bully" as Bush would be. Few American presidents in recent years have payed much attention to the will of the international community, and I don't believe Kerry would be much different. Kerry or Bush = status quo.

And quite frankly, the war on terror is beyond the point where pre-emptive strikes on nations are going to even really be an issue anymore. Who is next? North Korea? Bush has made it clear that we aren't going to invade there. Iran or Syria? There is no way even the most hawkish would dare set foot in another middle east country now. Sudan? This one has already been handed off to the UN. The big, easily identifiable battlegrounds are already being fought (and will be for years, under any president). What is left is not something that can be solved by sending in thousands of troops - it's the tricky shit that's going to take cross-border cooperation. And despite all the rhetoric, I don't see either Bush or Kerry having a clear-cut advantage on this issue.

Read the rest of what I wrote - past the ONE sentence you focused on - and it should be pretty clear.

And, on a more personal level, you really should move beyond taking things out of context and ranting about them if you want to maintain your credibility in any sort of debate. The multitude of personal insults that you direct towards anybody that you suspect has a different belief than you also don't exactly lend one to take you too seriously. I was under the impression that this was a good spot for friendly, intelligent debate amongst MS members over political issues - not some inane 3rd grade insult match. You obviously have different opinions than myself or many people on this board, which I do respect. I enjoy informed debate on differences, but the personal attacks which are quite often baseless are pointless and don't really serve any purpose. Cool? Just my $.02 on the matter.

Oh my god Krelm, buddy sit down, take a deep breath...let me buy you a beer or something. WOW. Your getting really really emotional over this whole thing. Anybody on this forum is obviously pretty passionate about politics, i am too. But this is a forum where I come home from work, check out the threads, post some of my comments, if I disagree with something I debate it. Thats it. Dont take it so personal buddy...geez i'll have to baby you from now on. I'll be gentle with you ok. wow. I think a sense of humor is a persons best virtue, and I believe it is my own. Relax Dr. geeez. I believe I have shown mutual respect for folks and opinions on this forum, but man can I have alittle fun without ruining someones day. If I didnt insult alittle things around here would be extremely bland, very dry. And I wouldnt even participate.

Krelm if I hurt your feelings im sorry. And I dont say that sarcastically(although I'm a bit shocked you care that much about what some guy on the computer said) you should find a hobby. I have some great dance music for you to listen to in your spare time. :) you can look me up on soulseek.

Now the fact is you made a careless statement, and then tried to justify your statement through symantics.(in that book you just wrote here)(and its ironic that you accuse me of this) hmm maybe im guilty, i probably just dont see it. Now look Krelm...you and I BOTH know that Kerry is a pussy when it comes to defense, and has a punk ass foreign policy. Dont play symantics with me. He will say or do whatever is appropriate at the time. WARNING: dont try to debate me on this you'll lose. How will Kerry support more troops in Iraq and the war on terror, when he voted AGAINST an 87 billion dollar increase in funding for the troops????? million dollar question my man?? How will Kerry support the war on terror when he was absent on over 75% of the intelligence comittee hearings?? [url]http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241[/url] So if you want to get back into the debate without being all freekin sensitive then indulge yourself. :)

[quote=krelm]What are the 2 major issues that terrorist groups have against the US now?

1. US occupation of Iraq
2. US support of Israel [/quote]

Although your posts here are been informative and well presented i want to take issue with the above. Why ask yourself what are the 2 major issues that terrorists have against the US? Its a redundant question.

These terrorists are the worst kind, they turn to violence and mass murder not out of political ideology but out of religious fanatisism. Politics you can argue, religion you cant!

Their issues against the US has very little to do with Iraq or even US support of Israel.

For the past twenty years there has be a gradual rise in Islamic Fundamentalism and terrorism; with the develpment of globalisation and things like the internet these fanatics (and thats what they are) are petrified that their opressive rule and enforcement of religious doctrines over own people will disapear. The way to maintain their oppresive control is to create a common enemy, one which advocates freedom and liberation - today thats the US but it could easily have been any other nation or group of nations.

The leadership of these terrorist organisation have bastardised Islam to wage war against 'the infidal' to ensure their own control of their people. Nothing more and nothing less! Just my 2 shekels worth :)

I <3 Isreal

[quote=neur0t0xin64] WARNING: dont try to debate me on this you'll lose. [/quote]

:CrackUp:

Dude, I literally laughed out loud out this! I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume you are kidding -- it's one thing to think it, quite another to actually throw it out there!!

Nice one!

:CrackUp:

toasty...thank you for understanding my humor. i appreciate that. 'wink

Re:: RNC in NYC

Back on topic --- I agree with you Toasty that having the RNC in NYC feels somewhat like they're using the 9/11 tragedy for political gain. However, I can argue that tragedy ended up being the finest moment of Bush's presidency because of the way he handled it.

And let's be honest -- Bush really doesn't have a lot of other things he can brag about. Economy sucks, job markets stagnant, oil prices up and down every day, so his best thing going for him is 9/11 and how he handled the tragedy and national security is one of or the top issue.

I cringed too when Kerry repeatedly mentioned his Vietnam service. All being used of course to prove he was tough and could handle terrorism. I'm not sure all Vietnam vets are happy with his constant parading of his service.

Re:: RNC in NYC

[quote=superdave] And let's be honest -- Bush really doesn't have a lot of other things he can brag about. Economy sucks, job markets stagnant, oil prices up and down every day, so his best thing going for him is 9/11 and how he handled the tragedy and national security is one of or the top issue.

I cringed too when Kerry repeatedly mentioned his Vietnam service. All being used of course to prove he was tough and could handle terrorism. I'm not sure all Vietnam vets are happy with his constant parading of his service.[/quote]

Hmmm superdave I'm dismayed by your comments. Infact allow me to enlighten you on just a few achievements of the Bush Administration in only 4 years:

1. School vouchers

2. Faith based initiative to help the underprivileged and poor has been a success.

3. Handling of the Taliban and Afghanistan, liberating millions and offering hope and freedom to even more. Taking part in serving as a pillar of democracy in the middle east.

4. Biggest tax cut in our countries history, just as he had promised.

5. Fighting against affirmative action and opposing special interest groups. Minorities should be treated like everyone else. Not like inferiors that need special benefits to excel.

6. Going balls out against the U.N. and not allowing the interests of foreign governments to dictate the scope of the United States.

7. First president in History to provide funding for stem cell research.

8. No child left behind program initiatives backed by the first lady to add more substance to public schooling.

9. Dismantling Al Queda and putting an axe in the terrorist global network.

10. Record high in home ownership particularly with minorities.

Here are just a handful of achievements Superdave, but I have to say that I do agree with your comments on Kerrys exploitation of his own service in Vietnam. Here is an interesting article from the Weekly Standard that will give everybody a lot more insight into Kerrys actual service during that time, but particularly his actions after the war, which is the real point here. There is also a link to his actual transcript from his infamous testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, wherein he said he and those he spoke for were "ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia. .

. . And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom . . . is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy."

Yeah I know...see it for yourself here: [url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/521fndbd.asp[/url]

Be sure to read the part in the middle of the second page where John Kerry, as he proudly told the Senate, met with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong delegations in Paris in May 1970. The guy was meeting face to face with the enemy in France to discuss peace proposals administered by the North Vietnamese, while Americans were still fighting and dying in Vietnam. WTF
Everybody, no matter your political affiliation, should read this article. Its atrocious and a direct slap in the face to all veterans who served during that era.

Re:: RNC in NYC

[img]http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.279.gif[/img]

Re:: RNC in NYC

Oh lordy, neur0t0xin64, you do crack me up. I think we both must be misunderstanding the tone in each others' posts. My post was not meant to be emotional at all - it takes a lot more than political debate in a music forum to get me really pissed off. ;) Basically, [b]you[/b] brought up credibility in your post before. My response was meant to point out that your typical style of "debate" (ie, taking things out of context and using them to fallaciously hurl personal insults) doesn't exactly lend to your credibility. No need to be gentle with me - I'm about as thick-skinned as they come - just look if you are taking something out of context which is overall pointless, or changes the meaning of what is said. It's more constructive in a "debate".

However, I'll just take your rants from now as just a friendly, humorous aside...you baby-eating ultra-right-wing homophobic twat. ;) Bring it on, bitch. :P

But I'll still take that beer if it's up for grabs. ;)

Anyways.....

Regarding Kerry's proposed defense policy, give me references to his specific propositions that make him a pussy on defense or a "punk ass" (heh heh - I thought the bumper stickers proved that Bush was the "punk ass chump" ;) ) on foreign policy. Show me how on his platform that he is "a pussy" compared to Bush. The main overall difference between these two guys is that Kerry claims that he wants to work more in the international community than Bush - which I think is a load of bullshit, based on past presidents, democratic and republican.

The voting against the 87 billion for the military is an old and tired argument. He (and most democrats) voted against it because

1. he was in support of a different version of the bill which had more accountability, ie it was payed for with taxes (he is a democrat, after all ;) )
2. it was meant to be a show of disapproval against how the Bush administration has handled Iraq Can I have my million dollars now? :Naughty:

The absentee rate at the intelligence committee hearings is not a good thing, obviously, but I don't see that as the lone indicating factor in how Kerry's foreign & defense policy will be. This is also in reference to the public hearings - I would be more interested to know if Kerry had aides there to get the information for him. These guys all have a staff to take care of that sort of shit for them. But it's a really minor statistical point in the grand scheme of things.

I can't believe I'm defending this turkey. :roll: My point all along being (and please, argue this - the semantics are getting old), I don't feel that either Kerry or Bush is more suited to fight the war on terror where it is potentially most damaging - in US financial interests abroad. Which has nothing to do with ones willingness to be a "tough guy" on defense or foreign policy....

These guys are 2 sides of the same fucking coin, and it's worth less than a penny. :evil:

[quote=davetlv]These terrorists are the worst kind, they turn to violence and mass murder not out of political ideology but out of religious fanatisism. Politics you can argue, religion you cant! [/quote]

Point taken. Religious fanaticism is definitely at the root. The Iraq and Israel points are more in reference to what I have seen in statements and demands released by these guys - the 2 most commonly stated reasons. However, you are 100% correct that the root is a fanatical bastardization of Islam which is going to stay around no matter what the US (or any country) does. Even if the US immediately pulled out of Iraq and cut off all ties to Israel (neither of which could or should happen), terrorists would still find issue with the states on [b]something[/b] - leading globalisation, spread of western culture, financial "intrusion" into Arabic countries, etc etc. Neither of which I see Bush or Kerry differing in much at all....

Re:: RNC in NYC

[quote="krelm"] However, I'll just take your rants from now as just a friendly, humorous aside...you baby-eating ultra-right-wing homophobic twat. ;) Bring it on, bitch. :P

But I'll still take that beer if it's up for grabs. ;)

Anyways.....

Regarding Kerry's proposed defense policy, give me references to his specific propositions that make him a pussy on defense or a "punk ass" (heh heh - I thought the bumper stickers proved that Bush was the "punk ass chump" ;) ) on foreign policy. Show me how on his platform that he is "a pussy" compared to Bush. The main overall difference between these two guys is that Kerry claims that he wants to work more in the international community than Bush - which I think is a load of bullshit, based on past presidents, democratic and republican.

The absentee rate at the intelligence committee hearings is not a good thing, obviously, but I don't see that as the lone indicating factor in how Kerry's foreign & defense policy will be. This is also in reference to the public hearings - I would be more interested to know if Kerry had aides there to get the information for him. These guys all have a staff to take care of that sort of shit for them. But it's a really minor statistical point in the grand scheme of things.

I can't believe I'm defending this turkey. :roll: My point all along being (and please, argue this - the semantics are getting old), I don't feel that either Kerry or Bush is more suited to fight the war on terror where it is potentially most damaging - in US financial interests abroad. Which has nothing to do with ones willingness to be a "tough guy" on defense or foreign policy....[quote="krelm"]

Haa...ok good now were talking, homophobic twat thing made me laugh. Although I have to admit im more of a moderate than ultra right wing.

Now Krelm, most of the time you ask me to support all of the things you already know, and it gets tiresome, but I will appease you here. It is undeniable that Kerry holds a softer position on foreign policy than Bush. To reference what I said about Kerrys saying an offensive position will encourage terrorism: here you go: [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/03/politics/main633637.shtml[/url]

So Krelm the main overall difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry would 'work' more in the international community, and then, when you site this as the 'MAIN' overall difference, your very next line is that you too think its bullshit???!!! Krelm Im having a hard time understanding you opinion here, mate, as well as your position. Do you even have one here? Or are you just wasting my time, if so pretty mean joke here. Fact is Iraq violated international sanctions 18 times, and through international intelligence we learned there is an imminent thread of WMDs. Now apart from Bush forming a strong coalition, just about everybody was on board with us except, guess who, yep France and Germany, both of who influence the United Nations significantly. Would your boy Kerry wait indefinantly, while having immediate threads of WMDs, for these two nations to support the war???? Britain, Ireland, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovachia, Russia, Spain, Italy, Holland, Switzerland, Pakistan, Israel, Australia, Japan, South Korea, ETC ETC......Is there a lack of coalition here???

Now this statement I am perplexed 'The absentee rate at the intelligence committee hearings is not a good thing, obviously, but I don't see that as the lone indicating factor in how Kerry's foreign & defense policy will be' R u overdosing on vicotins or morphine? Krelm...buddy, the guy wants to lead the only superpower in the world, wants to be the commander in chief of the leader in the free world, and you dont think that being absent for over 75% of the meetings in which members are briefed on all of the immediate threats to our nation, is not very relevant. Ooops dont want to put words in your mouth here...or that shouldnt be a single indicating factor of defense qualification. YOUR NUTS MAN! Your a psychopath. You would be 'MORE' interested to know if he had aides there, gathering the info for him, at a ultra classified debriefing of international threats to the United States!!!! Krelm your incompetency is demeaning. 'These guys have a staff to take care of these sort of things'!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH WHAAAAAAT THEEEEEE FUUUUUUUUUUCK?????????? Maybe Kerry should hire a personal asst. wipe his ass too(oh wait he does its John Edwards) Kerry must have hired an assistant to go tape his lectures in college for him, huh? Take his tests too. Hey Krelm, better yet, based on your theory, if Kerry was in office during 9/11, maybe he should have had an aid make the decision on Iraq and Weapons of Mass destruction!!!!!! There is no argument here! KRELM, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED BACK ON THESE FORUMS FOR 2 WEEKS. YOUR ON PUNISHMENT.

Re:: RNC in NYC

[quote=neur0t0xin64]

Hmmm superdave I'm dismayed by your comments. Infact allow me to enlighten you on just a few achievements of the Bush Administration in only 4 years:

1. School vouchers

2. Faith based initiative to help the underprivileged and poor has been a success.

3. Handling of the Taliban and Afghanistan, liberating millions and offering hope and freedom to even more. Taking part in serving as a pillar of democracy in the middle east.

4. Biggest tax cut in our countries history, just as he had promised.

5. Fighting against affirmative action and opposing special interest groups. Minorities should be treated like everyone else. Not like inferiors that need special benefits to excel.

6. Going balls out against the U.N. and not allowing the interests of foreign governments to dictate the scope of the United States.

7. First president in History to provide funding for stem cell research.

8. No child left behind program initiatives backed by the first lady to add more substance to public schooling.

9. Dismantling Al Queda and putting an axe in the terrorist global network.

10. Record high in home ownership particularly with minorities.[/quote]

I'm going to take your points 1 by 1.

1 - School vouchers average about $3000. Tuition for grades K-12 average $7,000. Where does a poor family go for the extra $4,000?

2 - Faith based? Who's faith? There's a reason the Founding Fathers wanted to keep religion separated from government. This is a democratic republic not a theocracy.

3 - Afghanistan? The Taliban? This ADD president got over them faster than I did my last boyfriend. BTW where is Osama? The Middle East? They fucking hate us. As does most of the world. All the compassion and good feeling the rest of the world had for us after 9/11 was squandered by this dickhead.

4 - Biggest tax cut? The middle class is paying more taxes now than they ever did. Oh you mean for his corporate buddies. Yeah they're doing real well. They even get a tax break when they take a job from somebody whose barely making it and send it to India.

5 - I do agree with you in part about affirmative action. It did what it was suppose to do now it's time to let it go. BTW the biggest winners in the affirmative action derby - white women.

6 - The U.N.? They could have helped us. Terrorists, drug runners and all sorts of nasties went global. We cannot isolate ourselves or we're really going to be in big trouble.

7 - Stem cell research? Bushito put Laura in attack mode. Do a google search and you'll see what I mean.

8 - No child left behind? Is this the charming program that gives schools the choice of "do it my way or I'll pull your funding?"

9 - Al Queda? I got sad news for you. They're still out there. And not just in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

10 - To go along with record high evictions and foreclosures.

regarding number 10, I would add that, although this is obviously a good thing, it is due in large part to the fact that interest rates are rock bottom and have been for the last couple of years. While that's great for the housing market, it is not good for the investment market that looks to federal interest rates. In that respect, it is kinda a double-edged sword.

Of course, I was able to take advantage of those great rates, so this is not really a complaint, just an observation. :D

Re:: RNC in NYC

[quote=neur0t0xin64]Haa...ok good now were talking, homophobic twat thing made me laugh. Although I have to admit im more of a moderate than ultra right wing.[/quote]

So you admit being a homophobic twat then? :P

[quote]Now Krelm, most of the time you ask me to support all of the things you already know, and it gets tiresome, but I will appease you here.[/quote]

I ask you to provide links because you too often take things out of context, which often completely changes the entire meaning.

[quote]It is undeniable that Kerry holds a softer position on foreign policy than Bush. To reference what I said about Kerrys saying an offensive position will encourage terrorism: here you go: [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/03/politics/main633637.shtml[/url] [/quote]

Thanks you for the supporting link - finally. ;) Kerry is unfortunately overly vague in his statements in that article. He talks about the "policies of the administration" arousing more terrorists, but he's never actually talking about [b]which[/b] policies. :| Is he talking about Iraq? Afghanistan? Working with Pakistan? This gets to a big problem I have with the guy - I want to see what he proposes otherwise (nothing, IMO). He's good at critisizing Bush without giving any specific alternative policies.

But once again, I think in this case, Kerry is talking a bunch of BS there purely to appeal to the anti-Bush sentiment without actually proposing any real alternatives.

And, for the record, I do feel that the Iraq fiasco, in particular, has fueled more anti-US sentiment and created more terrorists than it has gotten rid of. Going into Afghanistan was a good move and did cripple Al Queda. But invading Iraq has been highly counterproductive in the war on terrorism, IMO.

[quote]So Krelm the main overall difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry would 'work' more in the international community, and then, when you site this as the 'MAIN' overall difference, your very next line is that you too think its bullshit???!!! Krelm Im having a hard time understanding you opinion here, mate, as well as your position. Do you even have one here?[/quote]

Right - to clarify, I'm saying that Kerry [b]claims[/b] he is going to be less bullheaded and less unilateral on foreign policy. He claims, contrary to what he claims Bush has done, that he is going to attain an international consensus on US actions. I'm saying that I don't believe him ONE BIT on that - every president in recent memory has done what they wanted to in regards to foreign policy, with or without the consensus of other nations. It's just been most evident and publicised with Bush - mainly because of Iraq. For Kerry to do what he is saying he will do (work more in the international community) he will have to reverse the trends of Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, etc etc. Not gonna happen. He's either naively optimistic or lying. Take your pick.

In either case (Bush or Kerry), "going it alone" with the war on terror is going to be IMO ineffectual to solving biggest threats to US interests, which I've already stated in earlier posts here.

Clear now?

This argument is getting old - I feel like I'm repeating myself and you are constantly missing the point.

[quote]Would your boy Kerry wait indefinantly, while having immediate threads of WMDs, for these two nations to support the war???? Britain, Ireland, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovachia, Russia, Spain, Italy, Holland, Switzerland, Pakistan, Israel, Australia, Japan, South Korea, ETC ETC......Is there a lack of coalition here???[/quote]

1. Don't call Kerry "my boy". I like the guy about as much as I like Bush, which is not at all. ;)
2. By your definition, Bush [b]did[/b] got an international consensus on Iraq - just as Kerry is claiming he would do.

Point being, I don't think that Kerry's "soft talk" on foreign policy is all it's cracked up to be. Frankly, it's a load of shit - he's going to be just as unilateral as past presidents.

On the whole security briefing attendance record thing, I think it comes down to a difference of opinion on the gravity of Kerry's attendance record. You think that is firm undeniable evidence enough to prove that Kerry is going to let the terrorists run free over the US and bomb whoever and wherever they want. I think it is definitely a negative point, but one of [b]many[/b] for either candidate. I'm also used to statistics which are thrown around in campaigns usually being meaningless - they always leave something out. I would take a similar statistic on Bush's record just about as seriously.

Anyways, I think we just have a difference of opinion with this whole topic - you think Kerry is going to be a pussy with foreign policy. I think he's not going to be any better than Bush or previous presidents. You think Kerry is going to be weak on the war on terrorism. I think he and Bush will be equal - effective in some regards (homeland security), highly ineffective in others (securing US financial interests abroad). Arguing about the semantics is boring.

[quote]KRELM, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED BACK ON THESE FORUMS FOR 2 WEEKS. YOUR ON PUNISHMENT.[/quote]

How does 3 days sound? I'm leaving town until Saturday or Sunday. :P

SHiiit Krelm come back man, I like what we have going here now. :) You are a great sport and I really do respect your opinions, and we probably agree on alot more than what I let on to, but we have to fight about something. hah... didnt mean to get you all worked up over the 'kerry is your boy thing' hah..thats fuunny. your like 'thats not my boy man' have a safe trip Krelm, where you going?

Kelly, ok your back to being a honeybear. :) your a cool chick. Although I have to admit Im not in the least bit religous, infact im sure there is no god at all, but I just think they're doing some pretty great things around the world with faith based programs, lots of positive stuff going on there. But honey, you have to admit, the U.N. pretty much sucks donkey dick.