posted on September 2, 2004 11:46:35 AM newYellow - considering that anyone that watched the news coverage and is aware of the demonstrations would also have heard that same information from the voice overs as both you and I did, the only ones would still make the jump you are hoping for are probably too stupid to find their polling location in the first place.
I'm not saying they are stupid. You already said that some are Anarchists and someone else mentioned communists and other left wing groups. So the key here is that these are leftwing groups, hence the Democratic party all lumped into one.
posted on September 2, 2004 11:47:39 AM new
Taken from CBS - part of Dick Cheney's speech last night.
The President's opponent is an experienced senator. He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it. But there is also a record of more than three decades since. And on the question of America's role in the world, the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush are the sharpest, and the stakes for the country are the highest. History has shown that a strong and purposeful America is vital to preserving freedom and keeping us safe yet time and again Senator Kerry has made the wrong call on national security. Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed "only at the directive of the United Nations."
During the 1980s, Senator Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiatives that brought victory in the Cold War. In 1991, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm.
Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror," as though al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side. He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America *after* we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked, and faced with an enemy who seeks the deadliest of weapons to use against us, we cannot wait for the next attack. We must do everything we can to prevent it and that includes the use of military force.
Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics.
In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people.
Senator Kerry also takes a different view when it comes to supporting our military. Although he voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, he then decided he was opposed to the war, and voted against funding for our men and women in the field. He voted against body armor, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, armored vehicles, extra pay for hardship duty, and support for military families. Senator Kerry is campaigning for the position of commander in chief. Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief and that is to support American troops in combat.
In his years in Washington, John Kerry has been one of a hundred votes in the United States Senate and very fortunately on matters of national security, his views rarely prevailed. But the presidency is an entirely different proposition. A senator can be wrong for 20 years, without consequence to the nation. But a president, a president always casts the deciding vote. And in this time of challenge, America needs and America has a president we can count on to get it right.
On Iraq, Senator Kerry has disagreed with many of his fellow Democrats.
But Senator Kerry's liveliest disagreement is with himself. His back-and-forth reflects a habit of indecision, and sends a message of confusion. And it is all part of a pattern. He has, in the last several years, been for the No Child Left Behind Act and against it. He has spoken in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement and against it. He is for the Patriot Act and against it.
Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual—America sees two John Kerrys.
posted on September 2, 2004 11:49:32 AM new
Helen, your photo of Zell Miller says it all!
The man is a raving lunatic!
He gave one of the most hostile & vile speeches I have heard. I think that the pundits will really go after him for that speech, and his speech will end up hurting the convention & Bush as a consequence. He has associated the republicans w/ hysterical rage in prime time. Not a good consequence for the repubs.
I think Cheney took a thoughtful, mellow but clear tone in his speech to temper the ill effects of Miller's speech.
That wild eyed lunatic will probably cost the GOP a few points from their post convention bump.LOL
posted on September 2, 2004 11:49:48 AM new
I saw the zell miller hardball interview today, and clearly this guy isnt playing with a full deck.... Matthews and fellow guests were heard laughing in the backround.
posted on September 2, 2004 11:50:16 AM new
The Democratic party all lumped into one as percieved by the general public and I don't think it's a giant leap either.
posted on September 2, 2004 11:55:35 AM new
Zell Millers speech was a Southern Baptist fire and brimstone sermon as if he was at a revival meeting. I am surprised that none of you have picked up on that yet.
posted on September 2, 2004 12:05:02 PM new
Blairwitch.. did you like the part where the flippin lunatic wants to challenge Matthews to a Duel!!! LOLOLOLOLOL
MATTHEWS: What does Jim Jeffords say to you?
MILLER: Wait a minute.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Jim Jeffords switched parties after getting elected.
MILLER: If you‘re going to ask a question...
MATTHEWS: Well, it‘s a tough question. It takes a few words.
MILLER: Get out of my face.
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
MILLER: If you are going to ask me a question, step back and let me answer.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: Senator, please.
MILLER: You know, I wish we...
(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)
MILLER: I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.
(LAUGHTER)
MILLER: Now, that would be pretty good.
Don‘t ask me—don‘t pull that...
This guy is a total embarrassment, I can't imagine why the Repubs would welcome this type of freak act at their convention.. A total nut-bar!
posted on September 2, 2004 12:08:35 PM newSo the key here is that these are leftwing groups, hence the Democratic party all lumped into one.
The Democratic party all lumped into one as percieved by the general public and I don't think it's a giant leap either.
Most rational thinking people, no matter what their party affiliation, will clearly understand the nature of some of the protesters. If they don't take time to distinguish any difference between them and all Democrats, then perhaps they also have an ignorance of what is really happening within America when it comes to all other issues. JMHO
posted on September 2, 2004 12:16:11 PM new
Yes take Chris Matthews word because he is god. A person that talks so fast he spits on everyone, was a speech writer for the Democratic party and is truly a democrat.
Yes truly a voice of the people.
Where was Mrs. Cheney you ask? She gave the introduction speech to VP Cheney. She showed her family during her speech. So get over it. She has nothing to do with the office of VP or any political office as she is only a wife of VP Cheney
As Secretary of Defense, Cheney lobbied for ALL of those cuts as well. Republicans are repeating that line knowing that people won't look up the fact that they did the <b>exact</b> same thing.
<I>For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.</I>
In 1991, Zell Miller praised Kerry for his strength in protecting our country. That certainly makes this speech wobbly and flip-floppy.
Zell also said that Kerry wouldn't go to war, "without Paris' permission," which is an outright lie. Kerry said in his speech at the DNC that he would never hesitate to go to war if necessary.
<I>And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.</I>
Ah yes, the "I voted for it before I voted against it" meme. This is as misleading as they get.
Kerry's "yes" vote was on a version of the bill that raised funds by rolling back tax cuts on the upper class. Republicans voted against that version of the bill. Between that and the final vote, republicans revised the bill to raise the funds by increasing taxes on the middle class.
Republicans mislead people into believing that one of Kerry's votes meant that he is "against body armor" and therefore "doesn't support our troops." Using this logic, republicans don't support our troops either because they voted against one version of the bill.
Both sides of the aisle voted against and for different versions of the bill. This back-and-forth is the normal legislative process. Kerry was voting against how the money was raised, not against the idea.
It'd be nice if the media would report on these things, but they aren't doing their job.
posted on September 2, 2004 12:24:07 PM newThe Democratic party all lumped into one as percieved by the general public and I don't think it's a giant leap either.
It's not - not at all. People aren't stupid and WILL notice the difference between what happened at both conventions. How they 'went off' and will remember all the disruptions the left are causing at the GOP convention. They're hearing about it and reading it.
posted on September 2, 2004 12:24:23 PM new
CC posted a curiosity question about how many police were injured at the DNC. I would add to that by saying how many protesters were arrested, how many were protesting naked, how many were exsposing themselves, how many were generally being disruptive??
.....and this is how these leftwing groups protest at the RNC, but I suppose it's alright because it's just a part of the cause and every stop has to be pulled out to get ones message across and beat GW in November.
Ed to say; Here is CC's question that I was refering to; Does anyone have the stats from the DNC with regards to protestors and arrests? I would like to see a compairison between the two.
My apologies CC for misquoting you in my original post.
posted on September 2, 2004 12:43:33 PM new
I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make, Yellowstone.
It's not the fault of the Democrats or the Republicans that some radical groups are protesting. There is some anger within the country and it will continue among some of these groups no matter which party is voted in. Demonstrating/protesting now just gives them a bit more attention than they usually get.
posted on September 2, 2004 12:51:53 PM new
Kiara
My point is with the manner in which these protests are carried out as it makes the cause that they are protesting against/for look somewhat silly if it is done in a disruptive way. Again, as percieved by the general public.
posted on September 2, 2004 12:52:01 PM new
Libra says: Yes take Chris Matthews word because he is god. A person that talks so fast he spits on everyone, was a speech writer for the Democratic party and is truly a democrat.
Yes truly a voice of the people.
NO LIBRA.. WRONG ONCE AGAIN!
I don't take anyone's word.. I form my own opinions... how? I listened to the interview between Chris and Zell. I didn't need anyone to explain to me that Zell is a nut case, just listen to the insane remarks he made... wishing that they could fight a duel... LOL Please don't try to defend this person to me.. I felt nothing but total disgust listening to him last night. He was the one with spit and venom spewing all over everyone last night..
I lost the last shred of respect for the Republican Party last night.. their entire convention has been nothing but a hateful, vicious personal attack on Mr.Kerry, nothing on the issues, just hate, hate,hate..
posted on September 2, 2004 12:59:59 PM new
Kiara
Also, any disruptions that happen within the protest groups by different factions within the whole body of protesters are attributed to the party they are protesting in favor of because they will be viewed as a whole group.
posted on September 2, 2004 01:08:31 PM new
I disagree with you on that, Yellowstone. I think the "general public" has much more rational thinking than what you give them credit for.
If they don't, then it is as fenix stated.......
the only ones would still make the jump you are hoping for are probably too stupid to find their polling location in the first place.
posted on September 2, 2004 01:18:51 PM new
risasperson
Thanks for pointing out the false statements made by Miller. To linkak, facts are lies or claims and lies are facts. As Bob said, She'll "defend what she said, explain it, spin it, pretend it isn't what it is , but it is what it is".
posted on September 2, 2004 01:19:03 PM new
But you have to take into account that alot of people aren't watching the RNC and alot aren't watching the big news channels like FOX, MSNBC etc. Instead they are getting their news from their local small news stations where they don't exactly pick it all apart like FOX, MSNBC etc does. And what they are seeing and hearing is the sensational parts like police being injured, nakedness in the streets, etc.
posted on September 2, 2004 01:39:51 PM new
Now you're really reaching, Yellowstone.
If that is the case, they probably aren't being fed a lot of pap/crap daily either. Just like the neglected people living in Canada who get every network except FauxNews but still remain quite aware of all issues worldwide.
Most intelligent people will be able to discern the difference between the protesters. To suggest otherwise is not putting enough faith in your fellow countrymen.
posted on September 2, 2004 01:54:43 PM new
helen - I have provided supporting evidence ....kerry's senate VOTES....that was my proof.
The dems try to discount kerry's past anti-war stance. He is an ultra-liberal who has opposed much that's been FOR the benefit of our Armed Forces. HIS record proves that....NOT what I say.
-----------------
yellowstone and ChristianCoffee.
To compare the two protest situations with one another....this is one mention of it that I found, from USA Today.
There were a total of four arrests at the Boston convention....and you can read the rest. I will post the link in one minute.
Protesters plan bigger showing in N.Y.
By Fred Bayles, USA TODAY
BOSTON —
The protests were muted, the arrest tally small. But the mix of anti-war, anti-corporate, anti-government-as-usual groups are leaving Boston and the Democratic National Convention with a promise: Wait until New York.
A Boston police officer restrains a protester Thursday outside the FleetCenter.By Dave Martin, AP
"We never advertised massive turnouts in Boston," said Leslie Cagan, national coordinator for United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of anti-war groups. "There is, though, a tremendous amount of energy for the protests at the Republican convention."
In the months leading up to this week's convention, local and federal authorities built an army of 5,000 law enforcement officers and prepared for as many as 2,500 arrests.
Recent history gave them the impetus. Anti-war rallies have drawn tens of thousands of people around the country over the past year. The political conventions in Los Angeles and Philadelphia in 2000 saw hundreds of arrests.
But arrests related to protests reached a grand total of four this week. The most action took place in court, where demonstrators unsuccessfully challenged rules that limited protests to a small area adjacent to the convention center.
The only conflict Thursday came as some demonstrators veered off a march of 400 protesters outside the FleetCenter, the convention venue. They burned an American flag and a two-faced effigy with the images of President Bush and Sen. John Kerry.
posted on September 2, 2004 02:44:52 PM new
The vote wasn't questioned, lindak. The point is that at the time, Cheney supported those cuts also when he was secretary of defense under George H.W. Bush. Most of Miller's lies are obvious or should be. For more info read the transcripts of interviews after the speech.
"In his 16 years in the Senate, John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so. John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment."
ed. to add H.
[ edited by Helenjw on Sep 2, 2004 03:18 PM ]
posted on September 2, 2004 03:02:27 PM new
helen -
The vote wasn't questioned, lindak. The point is that at the time, Cheney supported those cuts also when he was secretary of defense under George W. Bush.
You mean George H.W. Bush.
And I'd expect this nonscense from a newbie helen but to constantly have to keep responding with your continue discussion of items we've discussed a million times is getting real old.
The military budget that was [b]proposed[/i] to be cut by the Bush 1 administration was a [b]suggestion[/i]....and it was to cut spending by 20-25% not the 40% that clinton administration cut our military funding by. THAT'S what KERRY voted to do. I'm glad you will at least acknowledge he DID vote to cut them.
posted on September 2, 2004 03:11:59 PM new
And for those of you who want to know just how main-stream kerry isn't he voted to send our troops to war and then votes against funding their needs.
The dems argue he did vote for funding IF.....
would have voted for the funding IF....
Well, guess what? That bill was voted down...so no longer counted. Then the next vote was without that limitation...of how it would be funded. Then how did he vote?
He voted *against* funding out troops needs
He was one of ONLY ELEVEN [out of 100 Senators] who voted NOT to fund our troops. Get it....check out who voted against it....only the radical ultra-lefties in the Senate...which kerry is one of.
That's the truth of that vote. So dems giving excuses are full of it. There's absolutely NO excuse to send our troops to war and when you don't get your own way...deny those troops what they need to stay alive. PERIOD.
