Democratic Convention -- What's the point?

[Beethoven]

You're into posting chick-picks as arguments these days, Steve?

[Moneyguy1]

Steve:

And you point is....?

Happened in 1987 fer crying out loud...It was stupid then, is stupid today..Does anyone really care?

When was the last time ANYONE heard a "mea culpa" from a public figure? Not Clinton, not Bush....Not Cheney....

Issues, man....Issues..

Anything positive to talk about?

Jeeez...

[SteveStromberg]

Al Sharpton is held up high by the Dems. Just like Bill Clinton. I guess being a lair is a favored trait to the Dems.

[BillyIdaho]

Boy, I sure see the word "liar" used alot on this board by people who don't like Democrats. So one side tells the truth, and the other is entirelly represented by liars. Hmmmmm?

I also see alot of terms like Socialist, Islamofascist, and commie thown around by, ahem, well, no names required.

I even heard the "Hitler" reference...along with a "remember he was a Socialist." Or something like that...correct me if I am wrong, please. Am I to suppose the this inference and linkage denotes a certain "marriage" of traits because of a Democrat's (F'ing Liberals!) location on the epistomological continuum? (I think it did). Nice connection! (not)

Well, since I have seen the term (Islamo) "Fascist" and the name Hitler brought up, albeit not TOGETHER, as they should be (after all, that defined him MUCH more than being a Socialist), I figured I would provide a little illumination on this term (Fascist).


Check it out: http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm


Draw your own conclusions.

Hope is on the way!

BTW - Finished putting the Carrera tail on tonight:

(obligatory picture)

[Moneyguy1]

But Republicans never lie, like Nixon, Haldeman, Liddy....

My oh my, how convenient a short memory can be.

Look, Steve, on a civil note, anyone can dig up individuals to bolster their own case. I insist that both major parties have had liars and exaggerators.

How does garbage dumping help clarify the issues of here and now?

I will keep up the drumbeat...Issues, issues, issues.

Personal attacks are not issues and there are too many of them. And, oftimes personal issues are the only thing that can be used when there are no positive accomplishments to brag about.

What are the clearly measurable accomplishments? What are the differences between the two platforms?

Who can do the job better and WHY? Not "XXX is a jerk" answers.

[island911]

Originally posted by SteveStromberg
Al Sharpton is held up high by the Dems. Just like Bill Clinton. I guess being a lair is a favored trait to the Dems.

huh.. . . I think your a bit off, on your criticism. . . the dem's ("leaders") are nothing more than attention-whores. *THat* is why the dem's (front-runners) have respect for him . . .he's skilled at getting attention.

As fintstone, and others have pointed-out, the dem's (front-runners) are all about selling themselves. . .tell people meaningless crap like "he earned his medals the old-fashioned way" -THK(wtf?) . . .or "we ought to have less (insert bad thing) and more (insert goodthing)" --mind-blowing insight

[island911]

Originally posted by BillyIdaho
Boy, I sure see the word "liar" used alot on this board by people who don't like Democrats. . ..
. . .I even heard the "Hitler" reference...along with a "remember he was a Socialist." . . .

First we had dem's on board with "Bush -"the big fat liar" . . . '''grandpa Prescot worked for Hitler. . ." GW is Hitler, ect.. ..

And now . . . It is interesting to see the different reactions here.

[Beethoven]

Outstanding car, Dave (if I may interrupt the name-calling for a second). Signal yellow?
Oh, and 'liar'? That's middle of the road and weak, in Mul's book. It's got to be at least a punishable action, like murder and treason. He doesn't want to discuss, he wnats to eliminate.

[BillyIdaho]

Island - I agree. I've seen all of the same terms used by Dem's.
Not defending them, but primarliiy reacting to posts I read on this thread earlier today while I was at work, and could not respond.

I don't think Bush is comparable to Hitler, BTW. That's pretty over the top.

Regarding the article in my previous post - I thought the conclusion was certaily thought provoking (a little alarmist, perhaps, but interesting):


An interesting note to end this article: As of January 2004, the United States fulfills all fourteen points of fascism and all seven warning signs are present. But we're not alone. Israel also fulfills all fourteen points and all seven warning signs as well. Welcome to the new republic, redefined, revised and spun. It is not too late to reverse this in either country, but it will be soon. The first step is realizing it. The second step is getting involved. As the propaganda slogan disguising our current war goes, "Freedom isn't free." But our war for freedom isn't abroad, it's here at home.


Have a nice evening - Dave, out.

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by ubiquity0
"Peace cannot be achieved by developing a "understanding" with the Russian People. "

"There is no such thing as war atrocities. "

Still waiting...if these are your feeble attempts at Rush "lies", I would like some context...

eg..."I am going to say this one more time...I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, not a single time, never."

Gahead.

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by CamB
Do you actually believe this? The traitor part? Remember, you're talking about half of your country here. Tell me you're just being obnoxious - you can't possible believe this...

I do believe that the Democrat leadership are malevolent, intentionally deceptive, slanderous, class-warfarists, race-baiters, thieves, crooks and treasonous (stabbing a sitting President in the back during war-time is treasonous - if you are lying to do it).

And the Rush quote:

We walked away from nothing, but at some point the president decides that the defense of this country is our responsibility and he's not going to leave it up to France and Germany.

I already answered this above, but I'll give you the cliff notes, and more:

1) He walked away from something - otherwise relations between the US and the countries he walked away from wouldn't have worsened.

He attempted. It was a noble undertaking opposed by ignoble countries that had their hands too deep in the Iraqi pot to be credible...But he did try and patiently.

2) Defense of the country against what? Saddam was not someone who required defending against. He had no ability to attack America. None. Iraq as a country never has had the ability.

Saddam had close associations with Al Qaeda. He had at the very least a strong inclination to housing or developing WMDs that he would have gladly armed our enemies with to deliver to our shores. He ignored the treaties post-Kuwait. He had a history of using chemical weapons. He had rape rooms, prisons for children, torture chambers, cut of limbs, cut of hands, cut out tongues, slaughtered over 300,000 people (see mass graves) and starved untold millions to death as he cashed in on the "oil for rotten food" scam.

Saddam had the ability, everyone from France to Russia to Kofi Annan to the corrupted Clinton Administration agreed.

3) France, Germany AND Russia. To nitpick. And a large part of the rest of Europe. And other important countries worldwide ---> just not the UK and Australia.

France, Germany and Russia are the the countries that had the most lucrative deals with Saddam...It was all about oil with these folks...And since when did France, Germany and Russia have the moral high ground?...Sometime after fascism and communism?...Sometimes after we kicked their ass and freed their people?

Never forget, we liberated men, women and children to the tune of 50,000,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan...I think our world wide total of people liberated by America closes in on 1,000,000,000 people

Basically, the whole statement is far more misleading, and requires far greater leaps of logic to accept, than Clinton's referring to "walking away from our allies" comment.

So Clinton has the moral high ground and wasn't trying to mislead?...The guy was impeached for deception, held in contempt, disbarred, sold pardons to corporate crooks, felons, drug dealers and even TERRORISTS...Clinton let Osama slip through his fingers and failed his main job of seeing to America's security...Clinton's National Security Advisor is a criminal.

Rush the liar? Didn't Rush - in effect - lie about drug use?

No, he came right out and said it, but since when was Rush in elected office?

[CamB]

I can't be bothered rebutting. You're so biased it isn't worth answering.

No wait, I'll say one thing:

I think our world wide total of people liberated by America closes in on 1,000,000,000 people

Quite right. And thanks to the attitude of people like you towards the rest of the world, America "earns" back its bad reputation.

Liberal and left wing ideas ideas, and their politicians, have considerably more to offer than lies and corruption --> if you can't recognise that you are either blind to reason and/or devoid of compassion. I haven't seen you acknowledge a single liberal idea, or person, as having merit.

Not one.

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by CamB
I haven't seen you acknowledge a single liberal idea, or person, as having merit.

Not one.

Name me one, and back it up with verified statistical improvement of intended target problem...Let's narrow the research to America please.

Affirmative action?

Welfare?

Abortion?

Graft?

You name it and substantiate it...Our most funded school systems are the greatest failures...Welfare encourages the problem it intends to solve...Abortion has done absolutely nothing for the welfare of children, unwed mothers or unwanted children...Affirmative action descriminates against every race except blacks and in the process lowers their competitive standards to achieve it...Graft?

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by CamB
I can't be bothered rebutting. You're so biased it isn't worth answering.

The truth is biased, bigoted, hard and cold...get used to it.

[Moneyguy1]

Attacking the arguer rather than the argument.

One of the last stands of a charlitan.

I would love to assemble a list of ad hominum attacks by each side and compare them as to number and viciousness.

Facts are apparently irrelevant.

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by SteveStromberg


http://www.nynews.com/newsroom/011304/b01p13reisman.html

"In 1987, Sharpton helped fuel a sad and racially divisive hoax. For weeks, he grabbed headlines and the nightly news spotlight as the chief spokesman for Tawana Brawley, the black teenager from Wappingers Falls who claimed she was kidnapped by a gang of white men. She said that after the men raped her, they stuffed her in a plastic bag, smeared her with feces and wrote racial epithets on her skin. If that wasn't bizarre enough, Sharpton made the additional claim that one of the attackers was a Dutchess County prosecutor, Steven Pagones.

The story was painfully disturbing — and it was false. A state attorney general's investigation determined that Brawley had fabricated the story to avoid being punished by her parents for staying out late."

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
I would love to assemble a list of ad hominum attacks by each side and compare them as to number and viciousness.

Facts are apparently irrelevant.

To make it easier on your sensibilities, why don't we narrow down the ad hominum attacks and viciousness to elected officials...This should make it much easier for you, if you are right (which you are not), because the non-elected liberal talking-loud-mouths are by far the most vicious ad hominum spewing malcontents on the planet.

What you will find, further, is Republican criticism is founded in Democrat criminality and facts, whereas Democrat criticism is founded in defensiveness and petty unfounded insults.

[CamB]

Originally posted by Mulholland
What you will find, further, is Republican criticism is founded in Democrat criminality and facts, whereas Democrat criticism is founded in defensiveness and petty unfounded insults.

The chances of this statement being true is nil.

In fact, even with "generally" inserted in there, I'm not so sure it could ever be true.

Liberal ideas

Let's start with ... health. Would you prefer:

a) user pays, 100% (ie insurance, if you've got it)
b) government funded, flat tax
c) government funded, progressive tax

[CamB]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Attacking the arguer rather than the argument.

One of the last stands of a charlitan.

I would love to assemble a list of ad hominum attacks by each side and compare them as to number and viciousness.

Facts are apparently irrelevant.

Presumably aimed at me.

Its true - I've essentially given up. Mul is so angry about... everything not in accordance with his own views that I no longer have the energy.

Mul - why are you so angry (about everything?).

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by CamB
The chances of this statement being true is nil.

In fact, even with "generally" inserted in there, I'm not so sure it could ever be true.

"the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen," -- John "I respect Sandy Berger" Kerry

This from a guy who brought a super-8 to Vietnam, reenacted his heroism, cut-and-ran, stabbed his fellow soldiers in the back, threw his medal away and has them hanging on his wall, married 2 millionairesses, supported the Sandanistas and has taken both sides of every issue.