REDZMAN

Nope.

I'm saying your an idiot because you won't state why.

:roll: wink.gif

Sparticus

I think what REDZ is saying is that you're an idiot for not backing up your opinion with any facts, and not adhering to said rules for this particular thread. If you wanted to just do the vote, then you should have only done that and not posted a one word post...

Your opinion, albeit valued, should be backed up w/ some arguments.

EDIT: DAMMIT REDZ! you beat me to it. grrrr

Tibbychick

Just a little insight on the convention thats in town, this coming from someone who doesn't support either candidate, and has no reason to either because they are Canadian:

Tuesday, August 31
A Canadian In New York
Mona Romeh, Guest Contributor

I arrived in New York last Saturday. On Sunday, something interesting occurred which set the tone for the rest of the week and solidified my feelings about Canada.

A few minutes after driving out of the Holland Tunnel and into New York City on my second trip there in nearly 20 years, I was greeted by a stunning view of City Hall. It’s a magnificent piece of architecture. Doing what any tourist would do, I leaned out the car window and snapped a picture. Two minutes, and almost four blocks later, we were welcomed to the city by the NYPD (who have completely outnumbered the regular citizens this week). Complete with flashing lights and loud sirens we were summoned to pull over. While we waited for the officer we speculated as to what it was that we’d done to get pulled over. That proved pointless. I don’t think I ever would have guessed that we were pulled over because - “It’s not a very good time to be taking pictures in Downtown Manhattan.�

Seriously.

I was struck immediately by the ridiculousness of the police officer’s statement. It’s the end of the summer. Summer is a time when people flock to New York nes pas? I can’t possibly be the only one taking pictures. (Marline, my friend, and the driver, insisted it was the three “olive complexions� in the car). The whole event ended without fireworks, but I was surprised that I was expected to deprive myself of memories because the Republican National Convention was in town. A town, I should add, where they seem to be very disliked.

This leads us to why I believe the RNC was held in New York this week. The Republicans are obviously exploiting the events of Sept. 11th by bringing them home again. The nostalgia, the fear, the terror, and the need for revenge are feelings the Republicans want to re-instill in Americans. They want other issues (gay marriage, education, health care, etc.) to be set aside so that terrorism can play an integral role in the way people vote. New York offers an excuse to feature it.

Unfortunately for George Bush, most New Yorkers aren’t buying it, and I had a chance to join the 250,000 strong that walked the streets in the sweltering sun to protest him, his policies (both foreign and domestic), and his inept four years as Commander in Chief as a whole. [note: glaringly lacking was support for Kerry during the Bush bashing, as most people see him as unfit for the job also].

Now, I’m not an American citizen (my father chose the Far and Wide over the Free and Brave) and I have no say in the upcoming election, but that did not stop me, and two Canadian friends, from supporting those who wanted change. As we marched along 7th Ave we saw people from all over the world demonstrating as well. We were not the only non-American citizens there by a long shot. It says a lot about President Bush that people from all walks of life, who can’t even vote for or against him, marched in the heat for blocks and blocks protesting his presidency. Some 1000 or so carrying home made coffins draped in the US flag, representing the daily deaths of Americans in Iraq. It was the most striking sight I saw all day.

The sights and sounds, including some very colourful and creative clothing, signage, floats, and flags, that could put the Disney Main Street Electrical Parade to shame, were everywhere. Provided by the amazing people at United for Peace and Justice, who kept the march peaceful and friendly, rainbow flags with the words “The World Says No to the Bush Agenda� were everywhere, summing up the feelings of all the demonstrators. It would never have been this successful without the hundreds of volunteers that showed up to make sure that civility ruled the day. With the heat and the numbers, it could have been a mess.

The highlight for me was completing a human peace sign with other random protesters. There’s something really cool about being able to lie down on one of the busiest streets in Manhattan at about 2:00 pm, something that would be considered suicide on any other day.

All in all, this was by far one of the largest events I’ve ever been a part of, and also one of the most enjoyable and gratifying. The decision to postpone my trip was a smart one, even though I’m itching to return home. Speaking of which, I’ve just crossed the border.

I feel lighter and safer already."


The Republicans have absolutely no reason to be in NY. I know a lot of people who reluctantly had to take their vacation from work this week because getting into the city is impossible. The Republicans are not wanted here, and the only reason they are here is to exploit September 11. They're trying to improve the quality of life here but yet meanwhile us NYers that depend on the city for work and everything else had to suffer this week. All for Bush's political agenda.

Anyway, yeah go ahead flame me all you want, just trying to show a different point of view and give you an idea of what its like to have the stupid convention in your own backyard.

REDZMAN

That's about retarded.

Republicans have no reason to be in NY? ANY AMERICAN HAS EVERY RIGHT to be in NY at any time.

:roll:

BTW, the location of the conventions is planned out years ahead of time.

Like everything else.

tibu971.8L

I strongly believe that Bush should not be re-elected.


I for one have not forgotten that we have not found Osama Bin-Laden. I cannot believe that our men and women are dying over at Iraq for the purpose of: "Removing a tyrant from power that has tortured his people long enough". Excuse me? Has everyone forgotten that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? That Bush met with the Prince of Saudi arabia and got Osamas relatives out of the country without questioning them?
The reason to go to war changed from finding the guy that was responsible for 9/11 to getting the guy that tried to kill my pappy. And then you say Kerry is unfit for command. We attacked the country that hadnt killed a single american citizen (before we invaded them) and let osama escape... to Saudi Arabia perhaps? evil.gif But i guess invading Sauidi Arabia would be bad for the $420 billion the have invested in the US.

Now Iraq has become a brewing ground for terrorists and americans havent been unsafer in the world, and say hello to the new vietnam that has become Iraq. Nice Bush keep up the good work, get some more of that Carlyle Group money flowing.

I for one also wouldnt vote for a candidate that thought that the jury was still out on evolution... 8O On Gay marriage, I think that the reason that Bush uses to denounce it;to protect marriage itself; is bunk. To protect marriag itself? WTF!! Homosexuals seem to be the only ones wanting to get married. Also one must note that Bush is using the definition that is in the Christian bible for marriage... so what if I believe in the Sun as a god and dont have a bible? Keep the bible out of this as we are nto talking about a christian marriage we are talking about a LEGAL marriage as in UNDER THE LAW? Let the Supreme figure out this one.

As for those that keep playing the George Bush as a cool dude card... Again... EXCUSE ME? 8O We are not talking about voting for class president, this is the president of the United States. You won't ANYTHING out of any particular candidate except a good or bad president. You will not have the chance to hang out with him or have a beer with him.

I have my reservings about Kerry also. This is a guy that will in almost certainty be more reserved about going to war than if say the country was attacked again(at least he wont sit like a fuktard for 9 minutes when your aid tells you SIR THE COUNTRY IS UNDER ATTACK, with the face of a 9 year old kid that just found out his dog died :x ). Maybe he will wait and see what the french, and our allies have to say before taking action. Maybe he'll wait on the UN 8O

To finish; I know what Bush's performance is and I dont like it. Its time for change. Vote Kerry.

PS
I believe a stayed true to the post rules if not then plz let me know.

Hobgoblin

*sigh* another that hasnt paid to my attention in history class...

Since the UN has been formed, being a good idea at its forming, had done NOTHING as far as keeping peace or upholding the laws of the Geneva Convention... What did they do when Hilter was a around? Let him take the majority of Europe before they decided that they needed to do something.... yeah thats the people we need to listen to when it comes to dealing with people!! France... make me laugh... they have been proven to support terrorist organizations, either directly or inderectly, and how many govn'ts have they been through now, why listen to them? They cant seem to keep things smooth for themselves, I thinks its time they had a coup something close to it!
Sadam had one of the largest armies in the middle east, was poised to try to take over Kuwait or Iran AGAIN, supported terrorist, he even fit the description of what a terrorist does and filled the shoes of the tyrant... yes can we please let him stay in power and continue to build up his arsenal (which I might add sounds a LOT like people of the past such as Hitler) like France and our allies wanted to do...
Now then, Kerry, yes I want someone in the office tellin me what to do as my commander in chief that cant make up his mind from one year to the next. Is he for or against terrorism, he sure has changed his stance on it more than once or twice since 2001! and now hes wanted to cut funding on our military but he wants to continue to put the pressure on terrorists... how are we gonna do this? Throw rocks and sticks at them?
This is tellin me that he really and truely cares about this country... I know when my dog died when I was 9 I felt extremely sad for a day or two... I cared about that dog! Im sure if Gore was in office, he would have sit there dumbfounded for a day or two and got on the phone with the France... and nothing would have been done about it but a phone call to Afganistan and told them, "hey you need to keep those terrorists of yours under control"... opening to door for EVERY terrorist in the WORLD to say, oh goodie we can attack them and they arent going to do anything about it and but gives us a little smack on the hand! Kerry would have done the same thing, or he would have took it to Congress and have not shown up for the vote and whine about the outcome later, even though he didnt vote and really has no say in the matter...
So, theres my two cents, sorry if it I hurt anyones feelings, but hey, Im entitled to freedom of speech, its something I fight to protect everyday along with all the other rights and freedoms so many of us take forgranted every single day... VOTE GUYS!! Do something that matters in this discussion, instead of bickering about this all day! heh ok... Im done lol.gif

CyberShark

All I know is that the stock market is starting show some nice gains right now (for those of us who are into investing) partly due to the Rep Convention--this is not the sole reason why stocks are doing better right now but it has helped. The Reps are saying things that investors like right now I suppose.

tibu971.8L

HOb... I belive you are truly dumb and need to go bak to you rhigh school and take history classes again. The UN was formed in 1945, yes that's AFTER the Second World War had started. And thats when Teddy Roosevelt decided it was a GOOD IDEA to get into the war after Canada, Britain and France had cryed for help YEARS AGO. Nice one hob, keep distorting the facts.

Also it's obvious that you just skimmed over what i said about the UN. I mean i can picture you scanning what I wrote for the EVIL two words: UN. I clearly said that one of the downsides to Kerry was that he would probably wait on the UN before taking military action. Of course as most republicans, you immediately said in your mind: BASTAGE!!! TRAITOR!!! HOW DRAE YOU MENTION THE EVIL UN!!! BRRAAAAAWRR!!!.

So our president cares about america becuase he invaded.... IRAQ, when the guy that plotted the attacks: OSAMA BIN LADEN, receives the majority of his funding from SAUDI ARABIA; a government that ACTUALLY HARBORS TERRORISTS, and of course Bush turned it around and made SAUDI ARABIA= IRAQ... Sad indeed. Yeah the unstability in Iraq and our boys dying for... wait... What are boiys dying for again? Oh RIGHT.... TO MAINTAIN PEACE in Iraq... Sound familiar to something from the 70's?

On to Kerry, EXCUSE ME, but since when has wanting to cut funding for the military = supporting terrorism? ARE YOU FUKING INSANE? Did you know that Bush put forward a resolution to reduce the overall pay for soldiers and their families? WOW what a way to support our troops huh? And since has changing your mind sometime between the ages of 18 and 60 = to being a "Flip Flopper"? Is it wrong to look at both sides of an equation and make your own damn mind up? Or is it better to just follow what your pappy and your vice president tell you to do? Hob your thoughts are the prime reason why Kerry will be the next president of the United States.

a_gut

Heh, the same thing happened to me when I was taking pictures of a courthouse for a project in my architecture class. There was a police station nearby and 2 officers saw me, rolled up next to me in a suburban and started asking me questions. They quickly figured out I was a student. I don't blame them or call them stupid like the Canadian writer does, they are simply doing their job and watching out for the community. I'd rather be questioned and have everything kept safe than the police not do their jobs and the community be in danger.

And as far as holding the convenion in New York, most of them WANTED it there. All those delegates and reporters have to eat and sleep somewhere. The convention brings a lot of money with it. Yeah traffic was blocked and such for a while, the same thing happened in Boston. Anywhere the convention is held this is going to happen.


You have a narrow focus on what the war on terrorism should be. It seems you think we ought to focus solely on those who attacked us: the highjackers & the country they came from, and Osama bin Laden. I'm sorry but that is not the whole war on terror. Even if we killed or captured Osama and took out Saudi Arabia there would still be a substantial amount of terrorism in the world.

The war on terrorism has a much broader focus, and Bush understands this. It's not just about killing those who oppose us. There will still be impressionable young, uneducated, unemployed minds susceptible to the evils of extremist religious views. To get to the underlying causes, we need to reshape those places that breed terrorism into countries where its citizens can work to better their own and their families lives. When people have something to live for, they are less susceptible to extremism. When their lives can be lead honorably through hard work, they don't volunteer for suicide missions.

Currently in most middle eastern countries, there is a high rate of poverty, little freedom, high unemployment, corrupt, extreme, or tyrannical governments, etc. Well guess what? Iraq sits right in center of the middle east, was ruled by a dictator that we know killed and tortured his own people, invaded a neighboring country, already had UN sanctions upon it, was in violation of those UN sanctions by kicking out UN inspectors, aided and harbored terrorists, had WMD's (where they are now is a different story), and the list goes on. Sounds like a good place to start to me.

Yes, other countries in the world are problematic that will need to be dealt with, but we can't be everywhere all the time. We also won't get instant results in Iraq. Look at Japan after WWII, we were there for several years, but we were patient and resilient, and look at Japan now.

Yes most of the 9/11 highjackers were from Saudi Arabia. Well, for one, they have a vice on our nuts with the oil they sell us. Also, did you know they recently held their first local elections not too long ago? It's a small step of progress, but it is progress, and perhaps using our military isn't the answer here.


This is an insult to my maturity and intillect, as well as to "most" other Republicans. I'm sure Hob just misread your statement.


Again, a narrow focus of what the war on terrorism means. Osama is rather insignificant at this point anyhow. He's likely living in a cave somewhere eating rats and lizards for sustenance, or dead buried under the rubble created by a 20,000 lb bomb. Even if he were alive and we did capture or get a confirmed kill on him, Al Qaida would continue to operate just as it had been. Yes, I'd like to see Osama killed/captured, but focusing all our attention on this one man isn't the right decision.


Being that our military needs the tools to fight terrorism, and Kerry has opposed just about every kind of military spending, I'd certainly say he would have aided the terrorists had his vote been the deciding one. See Zell Miller's speech, he outlined Kerry's anti-military voting record pretty well.


Every person in the military I know (and vets) has seen an INCREASE in pay and benefits. I think your mistaking Bush for Clinton, who gouged our military. Bush has not passed nor proposed any cuts in military spending.


Kerry has waffled on more than one occassion, and his positions on each side weren't too far apart. If you watch that RNC video that was posted about Kerry's position on the war in Iraq, that outlines it pretty well. At first he sounded HAWKISH about taking out Saddam, this was post gulf war. Then the Democratic primaries roll around and he's now an anti-war candidate. Then he's the Democratic nominee, suddenly he's for the Iraq war again and claims he would do a better job than Bush. If that isn't waffling I don't know what is. In reality I don't think he's changing his mind, but rather tells his audience what they want to hear. He'll tell them whatever they want so they'll vote for him. Kind of like when speaking to a treehugging crowd, his SUV is no longer his, but belongs to the rest of his family. Or how he was in Cambodia during the Vietnam war, on Christmas, now he's said he wasn't.

He can't give a straight position on the Iraq war, who owns his vehicle, where he was during Vietnam, or which way he voted to fund the troops in Iraq. And you want this man to be President? He bows to the populace, follows public opinion polls rather than his own best judgement. What is he going to do if something like 9/11 happens? He can't follow the polls then, they will be all over the place. After 9/11 some people wanted to nuke the middle east, others were glad this happened to us, and then there was everything in between. A post 9/11 world requires leadership and a backbone in our president, John Kerry has neither.

Hobgoblin

heh Umm Teddy Roosevelt was the one who built the Panama Canal... that was WAY before WWII... and as far as the UN goes...
"The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was first used in the "Declaration by United Nations" of 1 January 1942, during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers." Maybe I should send you my history book, YOURS didnt do the job...
but if you want to get down to it... (reading on in MY book)
"The forerunner of the United Nations was the League of Nations, an organization conceived in similar circumstances during the first World War, and established in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security." The International Labour Organization was also created under the Treaty of Versailles as an affiliated agency of the League. The League of Nations ceased its activities after failing to prevent the Second World War"

We have been told by Al Gore and John Kerry that we've squandered our international goodwill. We have not squandered international goodwill. In many places, we never really had it at all.

In the 1980s, much of European goodwill toward us was very low. Remember the protests in Europe over Reagan's decision to deploy missiles in Europe. Europeans protested, but Reagan stood strong and the Soviet Union cracked and crumbled, and millions more are free today because we stood on the side of those the Soviets feared the most: their people. Today, from Lithuania to Poland we see freedom and democracy for literally tens of millions, freedom that was said would not come in our lifetimes.

If you look at U.N. votes over the past 40 years, we've never been loved by the anti-democratic world, which is well represented in the U.N., because we threatened its leadership. We are a great country that stands in its way.

When was there goodwill? Well, we are told, goodwill was there under President Clinton. I would say that during that supposed era of goodwill, bin Laden was building al-Qaeda, declaring war on us, watching us do nothing about terrorism. In addition, during that presidency, we were appeasing North Korea and building up and coddling Arafat. If that was the era of goodwill, let there be no more of it.



this is what I read:
sure sounds like you are talking about Kerry to me... If im incorrect on this, my fault cause I was "skimming"

It is said by Wesley Clark that we are acting unilaterally and arrogantly. John Kerry claimed we did not do the hard coalition work of President George H. W. Bush. This is an empty complaint. That President Bush's coalition in 1991 had 34 countries. This President Bush's coalition has 31--the complaint rests on a factor of three countries.

We've forgotten--I should say, John Kerry and Wesley Clark have forgotten--the letter written by eight European leaders earlier this year, including "the conscience of Europe," Vaclav Havel. The letter supported our efforts regarding Iraq and said:

We in Europe have a relationship with the U.S. which has stood the test of time. Thanks in large part to American bravery, generosity and farsightedness, Europe was set free from the two forms of tyranny that devastated our continent in the 20th century: Nazism and communism.... The Iraqi regime and its weapons of mass destruction represent a clear threat to world security.
The letter was signed by Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland, Denmark, and the Czech Republic. These are countries that know the face of tyranny and the meaning and favor of America.


It is said that we change or have changed the justification for war with Iraq. But weapons of mass destruction was never our entire indictment. The truth is, we always made our case on several grounds, and it was the opposition who wanted just one. We charged all of the following: human rights abuses; history of aggression (invading two countries, bombing a third); hiding terrorists; funding terrorists; building WMDs--all were justifications. In fact, President Bush's first case to the U.N. in his September address last year began an indictment of Hussein for "repression of [his] own people."

It is said we have brought about the animus of the Muslim world. But let this be said loudly and clearly--and let it be heard all over the world. The last seven times the U.S. has used its military, it has been on behalf of Muslims: First, to save Afghans from the Soviets; second, to save Kuwaitis from Saddam; third, fourth, and fifth, to save Kosovars, Bosnians, and Somalis from their own petty dictators and warlords; sixth, to save Afghans a second time; and seventh, now the Iraqis. The American military is the peaceful Islamic peoples' best friend.

Some skeptics say Israel explains it all, that it is our support for Israel that led to all this trouble. Wrong. All wrong. Bin Laden did not focus his indictment on us over Israel. Our support for Israel simply can't explain why Syria swallowed Lebanon, why Hussein unleashed a bloodbath against Iran, why Hussein invaded Kuwait, why Kuwait expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, why the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan, why the Sudan slaughters Christians, why the bombings in Bali killed 202 people, why there are church bombings in Pakistan, or why the U.N. and Red Cross are considered targets in Iraq now.

The Holocaust Museum is a profound place based on a simple premise: We should never forget man's inhumanity to man. Remembering and seeing with our eyes and imagination is the way not to forget. And as with Germany, so it is with Iraq--we should see and remember.

We should see and remember the videos former NYC Police Chief Bernard Kerik saw in Baghdad:

Interrogations of Iraqis whose lives ended with the detonation of a grenade that was tied to the neck or stuffed in the shirt pocket of the victim....living bodies disintegrate at the pull of the pin....a tape of Saddam sitting and watching one of his military generals being eaten alive by Dobermans because the general's loyalty was in question.
We should see and remember the plastic shredding devices left-wing Parliamentarian Ann Clwyd brought to the world's attention, with the following witness-testimony:

There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming.... Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food.
We should read testimony from the survivors of the chemical attack on Halabja that killed a minimum of 5,000 people; we should see the torture chambers and the rape rooms. We should see mass graves like the one near al-Hilla that Christopher Hitchens described: "The remains of 3,000 individuals were brought to the surface.... Eyewitnesses from the horrific repression of 1991 report having seen three truckloads of prisoners three times a day, for a month, being unloaded there."

and this point... 18 to 60?? no no more like a span of a few years,
John F. Kerry's record is not encouraging.

Let's start with Iraq. In 1991, the need for a decisive military response to Iraq was most evident. There was no debate about pre-emption or multilateralism - the Iraqi army had invaded another country, and the U.N. was fully behind us.Saddam would either withdraw from Kuwait. or we would make him. The situation was really fairly straightforward. Except for Kerry. He favored giving sanctions another six months to work and voted against the war, saying we were "risking war for pride" and abandoning "the theory of deterrence." As George Will asked: "Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?"

In 1998, however, after Saddam kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors, an older and apparently wiser Kerry recognized the danger and changed his tune: "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis." In an ABC interview, Kerry warned that removing that threat might even require a ground invasion, but assured viewers that he's "prepared to go to that level." Later that year, the Senate unanimously passed a bill making regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy.

Which brings us to 2002. Kerry was initially critical of the Bush administration's six-month "rush to war," but in October, voted to give the President authority to take unilateral action against Iraq. In 2003, Kerry then decided he was again opposed to the war - especially when it hit rough patches. Why did he oppose military action in Iraq during two Bush presidencies, but become an outspoken hawk during Clinton's second term? If there's a logical pattern here besides political opportunism, I haven't found it.
Despite flip-flops on Iraq, Kerry is consistent when it comes to one national security issue: defense spending. He's against it.
Running for Congress in 1972, Kerry promised to "bring a different kind of message to the president" by voting against military appropriations.

During his 1984 Senate run, Kerry called for the cancellation of 27 weapons systems including the cruise missile, Patriot air defense missile, F-15 fighter plane and the stealth bomber, to name just a few. He also recommended reductions in 18 other systems, including the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley fighting vehicle and the F-16 fighter.

These weapons were vital to our success in the two Iraq wars and Afghanistan. But if Kerry said we could do without, who am I to question a Vietnam veteran? I do know this, however: slash the defense budget for new weapons systems and technology development, and the money saved will be buying extra body bags the next time our nation's at war.

Since John Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam ended in 1969, his record on defense issues has been at best checkered, and at times, logically contradictory. Once primary season ends, if he can't steer the debate away from national security, he's toast.

Kerry voted against last year's $87-billion supplemental appropriation to support military operations and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But it is also true, as Kerry has been saying, that Bush sent US troops to Iraq with too little of the best-grade body armor to equip all who needed it.

Kerry "voted . . . for military action in Iraq" and then "voted against funding our soldiers." How does that work? lol.gif [/quote]