Republican National Convention Commentary Thread

Post by **RogueIce** » 2004-09-01 09:27pm

Stravo wrote:In the NY Post we have articles bragging about NYPD tactics like plastic nets to haul away groups of people at a time.

Obviously, they're trying to compete with the LAPD.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-09-01 10:06pm

Zell Miller is a HORRIBLE public speaker. He speaks over the applause and cuts them off. Aside from his atrocious message that we should simply let Bush win so that we can save America.

EDIT: The Democratic response to Zeller's wankfest "He sounds like a rabid raging elephant."

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2004-09-01 10:19pm

I can't believe this guy is still going about Kerry opposing various military systems. That was debunked such a long time ago. Yet, they all still clap so much. Thoughtless fools!

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-09-01 10:34pm

Say what you will about Cheney, the man is a scary public speaker. I once had a partner tell me that if you wanted a lesson on how to address a court or jury watch the way Dick Cheney speaks. A nice slow cadence and clear concise language. Its not flowery but it gets its point across so simply and well.

Also more protestors were dragged out as he was speaking. Guess security just can't be that tight.

EDIT: Can anyone find a source for this quote that Kerry will only deploy troops at the behest of the UN that they've been batting out there tonight? I don't recall that.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-01 11:56pm

Now, is Zell Miller ONLY a Democrat because it hurts the Democratic Party?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-09-01 11:58pm

Iceberg wrote:Now, is Zell Miller ONLY a Democrat because it hurts the Democratic Party?

I think he's a Democrat so Republicans can claim that their initatives are "bi-partisan".

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-01 11:59pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Iceberg wrote:Now, is Zell Miller ONLY a Democrat because it hurts the Democratic Party?
I think he's a Democrat so Republicans can claim that their initatives are "bi-partisan".

Which usually just means you're taking two dildos up the ass instead of one.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-09-02 04:23am

I loved how Guiliani managed to make German news with him pissing on us for the terrorist attack in Munich 1972...

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-09-02 10:29am

Dahak wrote:I loved how Guiliani managed to make German news with him pissing on us for the terrorist attack in Munich 1972...

Were those terrorists released after only a few months?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-09-02 10:35am

On tonight's Agenda: "Building a safer world and a more hopeful America"

Bush will accept the party's presidential nomination and will outline his vision for four more years, under the banner of "Building a Safer World and a More Hopeful America." The president will recall his record of leading the nation during war as well as his plans for a safer country and globe. He'll also speak of his plans for the economy and on Americans' sense of compassion.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2004-09-02 10:59am

Stravo wrote:
Dahak wrote:I loved how Guiliani managed to make German news with him pissing on us for the terrorist attack in Munich 1972...
Were those terrorists released after only a few months?

They were released after several other terrorists hijacked a Lufthansa airplane and demanded the release. This was a very difficult decision for the German government, and there seems to have been some behind-the-scene maneuvring, as well.
They were not released "just so", as Guliani implied in his speech.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-09-02 11:51am

Did anyone see Chris Mathews being challenged to a duel by Miller.

Appearantly in an interview after the show, Mathews got on Zell's bad side and was challenged to a duel at dawm. I only saw a few seconds this morning, but it was all over MSNBC and Imus this morning. He said something to the effect of "If we was in the 1800s, i'd challenge you to a duel suh!" and said it like he's fucking serious too! I laughed till i cried.

Excuse me while i laugh myself into a coma.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-02 11:53am

Miller is a bitter old fuck at the end of his political career. It's a shame that he's chosen to go out by shooting himself in the head instead of peacefully.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-09-02 12:13pm

From a correspondant with the WV Republicans, via his 'blog:

How do we know West Virginia is a key state in this election? Today, on the last day of the convention, the floor will be reconfigured to accommodate a walkway. The West Virginia delegation will be easy to spot, as it will be the only one between President Bush and the TV cameras.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-09-02 12:53pm

Well, due to getting a new puppy and tons of work I havent been able to really watch a lot of the convention. Did see Arnold ant VP speech last night. Tonight Im looking forward to hearing Bush on this idea of an "ownership society." Im interested in the idea, and I like the health care fund, nontaxable and controlled by the investor. Of course, home ownership is a huge thing for a lot of people. I hope he doesnt babble on without giving ample time to this ownership society idea. Guess we just have to wait n see

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-02 01:01pm

The term "ownership society" sounds really cool. Very clever choice of words. Much more palatable and compassionate-sounding than the more honest "fuck the poor".

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-02 01:13pm

The GOP's platform is pretty much predicated on a false analogy fallacy. They phrase the whole thing as "Vote for us or against America," pretty much.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-09-02 01:32pm

Cairber wrote:Well, due to getting a new puppy and tons of work I havent been able to really watch a lot of the convention. Did see Arnold ant VP speech last night. Tonight Im looking forward to hearing Bush on this idea of an "ownership society." Im interested in the idea, and I like the health care fund, nontaxable and controlled by the investor. Of course, home ownership is a huge thing for a lot of people. I hope he doesnt babble on without giving ample time to this ownership society idea. Guess we just have to wait n see

Well, his speech is scheduled for 50 minutes, so the forecast looks like there is going to be a fair amount of babbling and choir singing.

What exactly is his "Ownership Society" anyway? Your post is the first time I've heard it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-02 01:39pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:What exactly is his "Ownership Society" anyway? Your post is the first time I've heard it.

Probably the Conservative fantasy that you can magically get far better performance out of all your social programs if you hand each person's chunk of it over to him so he can invest it in the stock market. Thus guaranteeing that if there's a major downturn or he's simply a lousy money manager and he actually needs his social assistance, he ... will have lost that too.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-02 01:43pm

The Conservative fantasy society reminds me of Star Trek engineering in a way: Overly complicated, with ridiculously overdependent "redundancies" that don't add to the robustness of the system at all, and wholly dependent on a single point of failure.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-09-02 01:54pm

Well, as I understand it so far (there is only a little out there on it right now, since Bush is really going to introduce it tonight...we heard a little of it earlier in the convention when the speaker talked about health care accounts) its basically the idea that each american should be an owner, an owner of a house, ownership of a health security account (i believe this is what they are calling them...not sure tho), possibly the privitization of social security etc etc. Basically the main point is growth in the private sector. An "ownership society" has been defined loosely as:

An ownership society values responsibility, liberty, and property. Individuals are empowered by freeing them from dependence on government handouts and making them owners instead, in control of their own lives and destinies. In the ownership society, patients control their own health care, parents control their own children's education, and workers control their retirement savings.

How is Bush going to apply this in america? Thats kinda yet to be seen. But if you can get ahold of Business Week on Sept 7 they are suppose to have a huge section dedicated to this topic (based on what has been previously said and what it talked about at the convention).

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-02 02:04pm

Cairber wrote:Well, as I understand it so far (there is only a little out there on it right now, since Bush is really going to introduce it tonight...we heard a little of it earlier in the convention when the speaker talked about health care accounts) its basically the idea that each american should be an owner, an owner of a house, ownership of a health security account (i believe this is what they are calling them...not sure tho), possibly the privitization of social security etc etc. Basically the main point is growth in the private sector.

More dollars flowing into Wall Street is the point. Never look at a Bush initiative without considering the profit motive for his rich friends.

An "ownership society" has been defined loosely as:

An ownership society values responsibility, liberty, and property. Individuals are empowered by freeing them from dependence on government handouts and making them owners instead, in control of their own lives and destinies. In the ownership society, patients control their own health care, parents control their own children's education, and workers control their retirement savings.

That's a really nice way of saying "nuke the social programs and leave people to sink or swim on their own". Or should I say "give them the liberty to sink or swim on their own".

How is Bush going to apply this in america? Thats kinda yet to be seen. But if you can get ahold of Business Week on Sept 7 they are suppose to have a huge section dedicated to this topic (based on what has been previously said and what it talked about at the convention).

The general idea is promoted all the time. Nobody ever explains what they'll do with people who mismanage their finances (which would now include their social program funds) so that if they lose it, they have nothing to fall back on. Is the grand plan to just let 'em starve and die? Point and laugh? Mumble some platitudes about "responsibility"?

From where I sit, it looks like the "ownership society" is a scheme to replace the safety net with a second wire.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2004-09-02 02:23pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:Did anyone see Chris Mathews being challenged to a duel by Miller.

Appearantly in an interview after the show, Mathews got on Zell's bad side and was challenged to a duel at dawm. I only saw a few seconds this morning, but it was all over MSNBC and Imus this morning. He said something to the effect of "If we was in the 1800s, i'd challenge you to a duel suh!" and said it like he's fucking serious too! I laughed till i cried.

Excuse me while i laugh myself into a coma.

Well, whether you agree with Miller and his position or not, you can understand where he was coming from in this case. Matthews was doing the same thing (or trying to) that he did to Michelle Malkin in an interview last week: he'll ask a question, let you get about five words into your answer, then start talking over you. He also uses loaded questions, and keeps coming back to the same question over and over again, even after you've laready answered it, clearly fishing for a certain answer. It's a tactic he only employs against people with whom he disagrees, and it would irritate anybody. Miller simply wouldn't sit still for it.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-09-02 02:51pm

I'm beginning to think, with all the protests and all, that picking NYC for the RNC was a brilliant move on the Republican's part. They're continuing to pull the 9/11 card and they're showing the whole country how crazy some people can be, in particular those who are going to vote Kerry. With all of these arrests and all....

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-09-02 07:51pm

So a group has taken the flag off the brook bridge and given out demands for its return or they are threatening to burn it. I was making dinner when the story came on so I didnt catch exactly what the demands were...but they included releasing protestors from jail. Do I need to comment on the irony of this?