I was very impressed with the President's speech tonight

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
That's a bit different than a invitation only gathering wouldn't you say?

What were all those people marching outside MSG doing?

I know you asked what all those people were doing outside MSG. . .but this article outlines how they are affiliated. (. . .although communists, socialists, and anarchists are certainly permitted to assemble in this great country of ours, too!)

http://forward.com/main/article.php?ref=treiman200408251032

 

[trip]

Originally posted by beattyfamily
I know! I couldn't believe that he's still harping on that instead of focusing on TODAY and the last 20 years of his term as my Senator. Seems so desperate to me.

I also learned for the first time last night that Kerry also requested a deferment for 12 months for studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University. He was denied it. I never knew this!

He too (Kerrey) probably had a deferment. As was common at the time, I assume when he attended Yale, he carried a S-2 student deferment. If I remember correctly, he should have applied to a divinity school. I think that was one of the few graduate degrees that were approved during that time.

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Hey, I'd like to think I have considerably better grammer,

Just a little joke... grammar, not grammer

Anyway, I do think both of them were typical of party conventions. While I do think it a bit crass to use images and memories of September 11th, 2001 for political purposes, that doesn't mean I'm surprised or disgusted when political parties do so.

Honestly, I think most political convention speeches are banished to oblivion within minutes of the speaker leaving the podium. And most have a fair sprinkling of rancor for the opposition in them. That is one of the key elements that made Barack Obama's speech stand out from the others at the DNC, IMO.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Kendra17
WVREVY, obviously, the meaning of my point will be "missed by many on this thread". . .

By the way: grammar has an "a". If you detected any poor grammar in the speech, I'd have to conclude it was because you specifically looked for it. What upset you? Syntax? His use of idioms? The speech was masterful. And, imo, it probably upset you a bit that he delivered it with nary an error.

Hey, I said grammar, not spelling Actually, he skipped the word "the" in a sentence...don't recall exactly what he was saying, just that it was in the section of the speech dealing with education. And if you think that was a "masterful" speech...well, you've obviously not been paying attention to Clinton for the past 12 years, and you apparently missed Obama at the DNC as well. As a piece of rhetoric, it was poorly paced, and even more poorly delivered...paritcularly the first part. The second half was better, but then it's no secret that this president is much more comfortable talking about evil-doers than he is about domestic policy.

Originally posted by Kendra17
I do not presume to explain 9-11 to anyone. My point was, and is, that she and others do not understand 9-11 to US, obviously. You have your OWN experience regarding terrorism; that's clear. The people who DO support Bush see these events as as part of a continuum. The only difference is the success of this attack; the massive scale.

I've got a little news for you...you DO NOT OWN THE IDEA. MOST people see 9/11 as part of a war, neither the start nor, certainly, the end. Trying to claim that just makes you look foolish, because it simply isn't true. What I, and others, disagree with is the way that Bushco has chosen to fight this war.

Originally posted by Kendra17
It is apparent that you do not understand how we see this defining event of our lifetime so far. If you did, you'd be a Bush supporter.

See what I mean ? You think that just because 9/11 was the most important event, politically, in our lifetimes, that it somehow makes your position on how it should be handled unassailable. You couldn't BE more wrong. Democrats see the event in EXACTLY the same way. We just choose to go about fighting it in a different manner. You keep getting on your high horse about how superior your perception is, and frankly, it's offensive.

Originally posted by Kendra17
And thank you for pointing out I'm part of the redneck vote. Better that than aligning myself with a group of utopian pseudo-intellectuals.

Please point out where I said you were part of the redneck vote ?

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

The President did a great job last night. I can only hope people can see that the only way this country can move foward and stay safe is to continue our current leadership! All Kerry is about is getting elected. There is no miracle he is going to work to bring back the prosperity of the 90"s. This is a different world. 9-11 was a reality check for this country. We were so busy trying to out spend our neighbor, are country became a open target. We let are guard down. That came about from the last democratic leader that left us open to this attack. We, with all are military cuts left the side door open to these terrorists. If our security goes unprotected what will be next! Domestic issues are very important,but due to these different times security seems to be even more crucial. I, as a parent don't want to take the risk of being weakend again. George Bush will have my vote! This President won't risk are national security. John Kerry is weak. He just wants to apologize to the world for America's boldness. Thats exactly what these terrorist countries want. They are waiting and hoping this guy gets into office. They will probably have a big party right in our backyard,with Kerry as the guest of honor. God help us all!!

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Please point out where I said you were part of the redneck vote ?

Okay.

This whole convention, seems to me, was just more of the same, boring MO from the right. The president and Cheney hiding behind other people attacking their opponent so that they can feign innocence. It may appeal to the redneck vote, but I'm still holding out faith that the American people will see all these promises Bush is making and wonder where all these great ideas have been for the last four years. [/B]

True, you didn't say "Kendra, you are part of the redneck vote". But, I took your paragraph to mean that if Bush and Cheney are appealing to some, they must be part of the redneck vote.

Am I incorrect in my interpretation? Of course, I didn't agree that the President and Cheney are hiding behind other people while attacking their opponent so that they could feign innocence, so that fact alone may dismiss your entire assertion, anyways.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by jjskribs
Dawn........ Senator Kerry talked about a lot of other things tonight besides Vietnam. The point he made about Vietnam was that Cheney received deferrment after deferrment. How dare he attack John Kerry's service to this country. I find "chicken hawks" like Cheney to lack credibility.

he will regret attacking Cheney for the deferrment, one fact that hasn't been put out there yet, is the fact that Kerry applied for a deferrment and was turned down, he then enlisted so he could be in the navy and see less fighting than the army...

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
he will regret attacking

No one has shown anything yet where VP Cheney did attack Senator Kerry's military service.

Any takers?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Just a little joke... grammar, not grammer

Hey, I won math field day in school...always lost before making it to the county spelling bee

Originally posted by jrydberg
Anyway, I do think both of them were typical of party conventions. While I do think it a bit crass to use images and memories of September 11th, 2001 for political purposes, that doesn't mean I'm surprised or disgusted when political parties do so.

I thought I remembered Bush saying a couple years ago that he would never use 9/11 for political purposes, but I can't seem to find the quote now. The point is, I DO find it offensive that he uses images from that day in his political advertising. I would find it just as offensive if Kerry were to use the images of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq.

Originally posted by jrydberg
Honestly, I think most political convention speeches are banished to oblivion within minutes of the speaker leaving the podium. And most have a fair sprinkling of rancor for the opposition in them. That is one of the key elements that made Barack Obama's speech stand out from the others at the DNC, IMO.

Obama's speech stands out against anything the RNC put up because it was about hope, not fear. Purely from a rhetorical standpoint, it was light-years ahead of anything else I've heard (I even think it was better than Clinton's speech, though most of my democrat friends disagree). And when you compare the DNC keynote with that of ZigZagZell...well, I think it gives an interesting contrast between the two parties.

 

[phorsenuf]

well, my worst nightmare has come true....I'm posting on a political thread!

I have what I hope is a legitimate question because I try not to get too deep into politics. I have my opinions and I made my choice and that is that.

However, this thread has brought up something interseting to me.
Some people say it is wrong to bring 9-11 into this election, if so, why bring Vietnam into it?

What makes one OK to exploit and not the other?

To me ...personally, using the Vietnam war for this election is wrong. Its done, its over, its emotional scar may live on, but what direct impact does that have in todays world? Isn't 9-11 and its impact still ongoing by the terrorist that are still out there waiting for their next opportunity to strike?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm really not looking for any trouble, I really am curious tho what the difference is in using these two major events in our nations history are during this election.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy

I've got a little news for you...you DO NOT OWN THE IDEA. MOST people see 9/11 as part of a war, neither the start nor, certainly, the end. Trying to claim that just makes you look foolish, because it simply isn't true. What I, and others, disagree with is the way that Bushco has chosen to fight this war.

See what I mean ? You think that just because 9/11 was the most important event, politically, in our lifetimes, that it somehow makes your position on how it should be handled unassailable. You couldn't BE more wrong. Democrats see the event in EXACTLY the same way. We just choose to go about fighting it in a different manner. You keep getting on your high horse about how superior your perception is, and frankly, it's offensive.

I OFFENDED you??? Gee, I'm so sorry!!! Nothing you say is ever offensive!

I don't think that I "own the idea". However, my point WAS and still IS that those that support Bush DO believe we have a clearer understanding of how our world has changed since 9-11. Okay, you may disagree. I already know you do.

I said, however:

she and others do not understand 9-11 to US, obviously. You have your OWN experience regarding terrorism; that's clear. The people who DO support Bush see these events as as part of a continuum. The only difference is the success of this attack; the massive scale.

You still don't share Bush' perspective. We do. That's all I mean. It seems that you have admitted as much since you are constantly dismissing his supporters as kool aid drinkers and other terms I can't remember right now. . .wingnuts, etc. You share a different perspective that I don't completely understand. And, don't take the wrong meaning with that. I hear what you say and I am able to understand your meaning. Your perspective on it, however, is just so different from mine, that I can't understand FEELING the way you do--although I understand that you have your own thoughts and ideas on the matter. Is that clearer?

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Hey, I won math field day in school...always lost before making it to the county spelling bee

I thought I remembered Bush saying a couple years ago that he would never use 9/11 for political purposes, but I can't seem to find the quote now. The point is, I DO find it offensive that he uses images from that day in his political advertising. I would find it just as offensive if Kerry were to use the images of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq.

Obama's speech stands out against anything the RNC put up because it was about hope, not fear. Purely from a rhetorical standpoint, it was light-years ahead of anything else I've heard (I even think it was better than Clinton's speech, though most of my democrat friends disagree). And when you compare the DNC keynote with that of ZigZagZell...well, I think it gives an interesting contrast between the two parties.

I don't doubt that Bush said he wouldn't use it for political purposes, or something to that effect. But I'm not surprised it has been used. You're offended by that -- fair enough. I can see why one might be. I'm a bit disappointed, but I don't think I'd say I'm offended.

As for Obama's speech, I agree that it was better than Clinton's. I don't think we disagree about why it stood out. Best speech of either convention by a good margin, IMO.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Okay.

True, you didn't say "Kendra, you are part of the redneck vote". But, I took your paragraph to mean that if Bush and Cheney are appealing to some, they must be part of the redneck vote.

Am I incorrect in my interpretation? Of course, I didn't agree that the President and Cheney are hiding behind other people while attacking their opponent so that they could feign innocence, so that fact alone may dismiss your entire assertion, anyways.

Well....yeah, I'd say you are incorrect. You were already convinced before Bush ever opened his mouth, as were the people in that building. I'm talking about the people that would be swayed by the inaccurate attacks that the RNC just spent the past 4 days rather than by actual thought about the two candidate's positions. Having had more than one discussion with you, I do not consider you to be among the former group at all. You're just a little misguided, that's all

As to the president's MO of hiding while other people do the dirty work....have you actually paid attention to anything that has gone on during Bush's political career ? Every campaign some "shadowy" (his word) group conveniently appears to smear his opponent. You really think that's just coincidence ?

 

[spearenb]

Originally posted by wvrevy
And when you compare the DNC keynote with that of ZigZagZell...well, I think it gives an interesting contrast between the two parties.

Content aside, Sen. Zell Miller speech was no more over the top than Gore's or Dean's screech filled, hate filled ones given over the past year or so. I can disagree and say that Miller's was better (no surprise there), but, for the outlandishness, all of them are equal. Hence, there isn't an interesting contrast in this instance. YMMV.

On a side note, you coming north tommorrow to burn some couches?

 

[caitycaity]

my point WAS and still IS that those that support Bush DO believe we have a clearer understanding of how our world has changed since 9-11.

that's completely ridiculous.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by phorsenuf
well, my worst nightmare has come true....I'm posting on a political thread!

I have what I hope is a legitimate question because I try not to get too deep into politics. I have my opinions and I made my choice and that is that.

However, this thread has brought up something interseting to me.
Some people say it is wrong to bring 9-11 into this election, if so, why bring Vietnam into it?

What makes one OK to exploit and not the other?

To me ...personally, using the Vietnam war for this election is wrong. Its done, its over, its emotional scar may live on, but what direct impact does that have in todays world? Isn't 9-11 and its impact still ongoing by the terrorist that are still out there waiting for their next opportunity to strike?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm really not looking for any trouble, I really am curious tho what the difference is in using these two major events in our nations history are during this election.

Vietnam was brought into it because one candidate stood up for his country, while the other ducked it. It was brought into it because the one that dodged is accusing the other of not being fit to be commander in chief.

Personally, as a Kerry supporter, I would MUCH rather the focus of this debate be on the issues of today, rather than the issues of 30 years ago (and that's partially Kerry's fault as much as it is anyone else's). But if the right wants to keep bringing it up, then Kerry should just keep showing that contrast: one candidate put his life on the line to defend his country, while the other spent his time defending Alabama from the Vietcong.

JMO

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by caitycaity
that's completely ridiculous.

How so?

I kind of see this whole situation (perceptions of 9/11, the aftermath, how to handle it, etc) kind of like religious beliefs. Most Christians believe that they have the answers and they believe accordingly, most Muslims believe they have the answers and believe accordingly, atheists believe they have the answers, etc.

It's not sayinig that either side is right or wrong, but rather that the people on each side, Democrats and Republicans, believe that their perceptions are the correct ones, so they (we) behave (vote) accordingly.

You're a supporter of Senator Kerry because your perceptions and beliefs lead you to believe that his solutions are the best ones. I'm a supporter of President Bush because my perceptions and beliefs lead me to believe that his solutions are the best ones. That doesn't mean (to me, at least) that I'm absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong, just that we are viewing the problems and the solutions from different perspectives and belief systems.

 

[phorsenuf]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Vietnam was brought into it because one candidate stood up for his country, while the other ducked it. It was brought into it because the one that dodged is accusing the other of not being fit to be commander in chief.

Personally, as a Kerry supporter, I would MUCH rather the focus of this debate be on the issues of today, rather than the issues of 30 years ago (and that's partially Kerry's fault as much as it is anyone else's). But if the right wants to keep bringing it up, then Kerry should just keep showing that contrast: one candidate put his life on the line to defend his country, while the other spent his time defending Alabama from the Vietcong.

JMO

But what does it have to do with today?

Why can't everybody just move on and deal with the issues at hand. Its so exasberating......

 

[AirForceRocks]

But if the right wants to keep bringing it up

The problem with your theory is that it wasn't the right that brought up Viet Nam, it was Senator Kerry. So why did he do that?

It was brought into it because the one that dodged is accusing the other of not being fit to be commander in chief.

Could you please provide a link where President Bush has said that Senator Kerry is unfit to be commander in chief?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by spearenb
Content aside, Sen. Zell Miller speech was no more over the top than Gore's or Dean's screech filled, hate filled ones given over the past year or so. I can disagree and say that Miller's was better (no surprise there), but, for the outlandishness, all of them are equal. Hence, there isn't an interesting contrast in this instance. YMMV.

Dean and Gore didn't give those speeches as the keynote of their party's convention, or even at the convention at all (though both were rougher than Kerry, I'll admit that). Besides, you can't just set "content aside", because the content of Miller's tirade was just as over-the-top as the delivery.

Originally posted by spearenb
On a side note, you coming north tommorrow to burn some couches?

Abso-friggin-lutely....Heard a rumor this morning that they are also thinking of moving the Central Florida game next week to Mo'Town, but haven't heard anything else as yet.