I was very impressed with the President's speech tonight

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I particularly liked the poor grammer while discussing the educational system in this country, but I'm sure that irony will be missed by many on this thread.

Those in glass houses...

By the way, I'd agree that it was pretty typical convention fare (I would say the same of the DNC). Not a whole lot of substance to either of them. And certainly the second half of the speech was better than the first. All things considered, I think it was a better speech than I expected from Bush (though honestly, Kerry's was better than I expected of him as well).

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
*** Deleted. Not worth the effort. ***

Your post or his?

Richard

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
Your post or his?

Richard

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by richiebaseball
Your post or his?

Richard

That goes without saying, doesn't it ? I mean, if he could defend the speech rationally, then he wouldn't have to attack me personally.

But that's ok...After watching this drivel all week, I understand that he's just taking his direction from what the party leadership is doing.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Those in glass houses...

Hey, I'd like to think I have considerably better grammer, when I so choose, than that employed with regularity by this president. Most of the time I just write in a conversational style that doesn't really require stringent grammatical rules Besides, there is that little bit of important distinction in that I'm not running for leader of the free world.

Originally posted by jrydberg
By the way, I'd agree that it was pretty typical convention fare (I would say the same of the DNC). Not a whole lot of substance to either of them. And certainly the second half of the speech was better than the first. All things considered, I think it was a better speech than I expected from Bush (though honestly, Kerry's was better than I expected of him as well).

Actually, I'd argue that it wasn't just "typical" convention fare, though I'd agree that the DNC was. I've never seen more hate-filled rhetoric by the people on the podium...more fear inspiring language...than I did at this convention. From the blatant exploitation of 9/11 to the lunacy of ZigZagZell, there was an awful lot to be ashamed of in the things I saw.

 

[Maleficent13]

Originally posted by JPN4265
You poor thing, it will be okay. Go back to bed and let the grown-ups deal with the problems.

Yes, because apparently the "grown-ups" are very mature.

Bad form, JPN4265.

 

[danacara]

I have to agree, it was masterfully written. Didn't say much, took credit where no credit was due, but masterfully written.

 

[AirForceRocks]

From the blatant exploitation of 9/11

Why is it blatant exploitation to talk about the most significant event in recent American history? It has been barely 3 years ago since the attack, yet it seems that it is supposed to be "off-limits" to discuss 9/11 in the course of a political campaign. Why is that?

Do you really believe that this country's response to 9/11 as well as the candidates' plans to avoid another such attack are not important topics for discussion in a Presidential campaign?

 

[beattyfamily]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Hey, I'd like to think I have considerably better grammer, when I so choose, than that employed with regularity by this president. Most of the time I just write in a conversational style that doesn't really require stringent grammatical rules Besides, there is that little bit of important distinction in that I'm not running for leader of the free world.

Actually, I'd argue that it wasn't just "typical" convention fare, though I'd agree that the DNC was. I've never seen more hate-filled rhetoric by the people on the podium...more fear inspiring language...than I did at this convention. From the blatant exploitation of 9/11 to the lunacy of ZigZagZell, there was an awful lot to be ashamed of in the things I saw.

I think Gore and Kennedy gave their share of hate-filled rhetoric at the podium...I agree that there was a lot to be ashamed of at the DNC in the things I saw and I think some should be ashamed of sneaking in to the RNC to disrupt it...no one did that to Kerry anywhere thus far.

 

[luvmk]

I fully expected 9/11 to be discussed. There is always the argument of what's more important, the war on terror or the economy? Well, 9/11 is pretty relevant to the war on terror. The events of 9/11 also helped to define some of this presidency. I guess I didn't think it would be swept under the rug like it didn't happen and didn't have an effect on the last three years.


Rachel

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Why is it blatant exploitation to talk about the most significant event in recent American history? It has been barely 3 years ago since the attack, yet it seems that it is supposed to be "off-limits" to discuss 9/11 in the course of a political campaign. Why is that?

Do you really believe that this country's response to 9/11 as well as the candidates' plans to avoid another such attack are not important topics for discussion in a Presidential campaign?

Of course it's an important discussion. But that's not what we had in this convention. There were no "plans" laid out to say "this is how we're going to prevent this from happening again". Instead, we got a lot of misty-eyed remembrance about what happened on "that quite morning in September".

There is certainly a place for that kind of thing. But using it to make one candidate look good is exploitative.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy
That goes without saying, doesn't it ? I mean, if he could defend the speech rationally, then he wouldn't have to attack me personally.

If you feel that stating the truth is considered an attack, I can't help that. I just calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by beattyfamily
I think Gore and Kennedy gave their share of hate-filled rhetoric at the podium...I agree that there was a lot to be ashamed of at the DNC in the things I saw and I think some should be ashamed of sneaking in to the RNC to disrupt it...no one did that to Kerry anywhere thus far.

1 - I thought that the DNC was "carefully scripted" and that the candidate "kept everyone on a leash" ? Why, I was told just yesterday that only Al Sharpton appeared to have not gotten the memo

2 - I can't think of a single thing that the DNC did that was out of the ordinary for a political convention.

3 - I couldn't agree more about the protesters trying to disrupt the convetion inside the hall. Though I'd ALSO argue that the people doing the same thing to Kerry at certain campaign stops are just as guilty of that transgression.

 

[AirForceRocks]

There is certainly a place for that kind of thing. But using it to make one candidate look good is exploitative.

Then I take it that you were equally unhappy with the 9/11 speech delivered at the DNC?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Then I take it that you were equally unhappy with the 9/11 speech delivered at the DNC?

Yes, I would say that it didn't really belong in a political convention. But one speech by a mother that lost her daughter and son-in-law does not equal what happened at the RNC, regardless of how inappropriate I felt it to be for the setting.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy


3 - I couldn't agree more about the protesters trying to disrupt the convetion inside the hall. Though I'd ALSO argue that the people doing the same thing to Kerry at certain campaign stops are just as guilty of that transgression.

That's a bit different than a invitation only gathering wouldn't you say?

What were all those people marching outside MSG doing?

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Of course it's an important discussion. But that's not what we had in this convention. There were no "plans" laid out to say "this is how we're going to prevent this from happening again". Instead, we got a lot of misty-eyed remembrance about what happened on "that quite morning in September".

There is certainly a place for that kind of thing. But using it to make one candidate look good is exploitative.

Yes, I kind of felt the same way. It seemed as if the main goal, atleast during the first night, was to recreate the strong emotional sentiment that talking about 9/11 evokes. It seemed a bit weird to me too. I didn't quite understand it.

 

[wvrevy]

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

No, it's not. It is still a gathering to hear the man speak, and when he's being shouted down by juvenile morons it dirties the whole process. And before you say it, yes, I would say the same thing about a Bush campaign event.

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
What were all those people marching outside MSG doing?

They were excersizing their constitutional rights. They were NOT disrupting the ongoing proceedings. Got a problem with that, take it up with Tom Jefferson and company.

 

[LoraJ]

Originally posted by JPN4265
You poor thing, it will be okay. Go back to bed and let the grown-ups deal with the problems.

Excuse me??????

I point out an actual ISSUE and you seem to say I am being immature? Wow, you just can't face reality can you. Instead of attacking me, why don't you argue the issue and show me where Bush has not been a spend and cut president.


MinnieYC, I hear ya! I have lived in the NYC area (Manhattan, Hoboken, North Bergen and now Jersey City) for 15 years. When the war on Iraq was in the works, I was (and still am) very against it. All I heard from people who lived no where near here "Have you forgotten". That is an INSULT. Of course I haven't forgotten. I look at the empty hole in the skyline every single day as a reminder. But I also remember that it was Osama Bin Laden who was behind it.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Wow...Never thought I'd see people "explaining" 9/11 to a New Yorker Talk about "not getting it".

As to Shrub's speech last night, it was pretty good, for him. The first half was awful, and you can certainly tell that this president has no clue when it comes to domestic issues. I particularly liked the poor grammer while discussing the educational system in this country, but I'm sure that irony will be missed by many on this thread.

.

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.

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.

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.

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.