RNC in NYC

[neur0t0xin64]

Oh my god Krelm, buddy sit down, take a deep breath...let me buy you a beer or something. WOW. Your getting really really emotional over this whole thing. Anybody on this forum is obviously pretty passionate about politics, i am too. But this is a forum where I come home from work, check out the threads, post some of my comments, if I disagree with something I debate it. Thats it. Dont take it so personal buddy...geez i'll have to baby you from now on. I'll be gentle with you ok. wow. I think a sense of humor is a persons best virtue, and I believe it is my own. Relax Dr. geeez. I believe I have shown mutual respect for folks and opinions on this forum, but man can I have alittle fun without ruining someones day. If I didnt insult alittle things around here would be extremely bland, very dry. And I wouldnt even participate.

Krelm if I hurt your feelings im sorry. And I dont say that sarcastically(although I'm a bit shocked you care that much about what some guy on the computer said) you should find a hobby. I have some great dance music for you to listen to in your spare time. you can look me up on soulseek.

Now the fact is you made a careless statement, and then tried to justify your statement through symantics.(in that book you just wrote here)(and its ironic that you accuse me of this) hmm maybe im guilty, i probably just dont see it. Now look Krelm...you and I BOTH know that Kerry is a pussy when it comes to defense, and has a punk ass foreign policy. Dont play symantics with me. He will say or do whatever is appropriate at the time. WARNING: dont try to debate me on this you'll lose. How will Kerry support more troops in Iraq and the war on terror, when he voted AGAINST an 87 billion dollar increase in funding for the troops????? million dollar question my man?? How will Kerry support the war on terror when he was absent on over 75% of the intelligence comittee hearings??

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=241

So if you want to get back into the debate without being all freekin sensitive then indulge yourself.

[davetlv]

What are the 2 major issues that terrorist groups have against the US now?
1. US occupation of Iraq
2. US support of Israel

Although your posts here are been informative and well presented i want to take issue with the above. Why ask yourself what are the 2 major issues that terrorists have against the US? Its a redundant question.

These terrorists are the worst kind, they turn to violence and mass murder not out of political ideology but out of religious fanatisism. Politics you can argue, religion you cant!

Their issues against the US has very little to do with Iraq or even US support of Israel.

For the past twenty years there has be a gradual rise in Islamic Fundamentalism and terrorism; with the develpment of globalisation and things like the internet these fanatics (and thats what they are) are petrified that their opressive rule and enforcement of religious doctrines over own people will disapear. The way to maintain their oppresive control is to create a common enemy, one which advocates freedom and liberation - today thats the US but it could easily have been any other nation or group of nations.

The leadership of these terrorist organisation have bastardised Islam to wage war against 'the infidal' to ensure their own control of their people. Nothing more and nothing less! Just my 2 shekels worth

[Jenks]

I <3 Isreal

[toasty]

WARNING: dont try to debate me on this you'll lose.

Dude, I literally laughed out loud out this! I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume you are kidding -- it's one thing to think it, quite another to actually throw it out there!!

Nice one!

[neur0t0xin64]

toasty...thank you for understanding my humor. i appreciate that. 'wink

[superdave]

Re:: RNC in NYC

Back on topic --- I agree with you Toasty that having the RNC in NYC feels somewhat like they're using the 9/11 tragedy for political gain. However, I can argue that tragedy ended up being the finest moment of Bush's presidency because of the way he handled it.

And let's be honest -- Bush really doesn't have a lot of other things he can brag about. Economy sucks, job markets stagnant, oil prices up and down every day, so his best thing going for him is 9/11 and how he handled the tragedy and national security is one of or the top issue.

I cringed too when Kerry repeatedly mentioned his Vietnam service. All being used of course to prove he was tough and could handle terrorism. I'm not sure all Vietnam vets are happy with his constant parading of his service.

[neur0t0xin64]

Re:: RNC in NYC

And let's be honest -- Bush really doesn't have a lot of other things he can brag about. Economy sucks, job markets stagnant, oil prices up and down every day, so his best thing going for him is 9/11 and how he handled the tragedy and national security is one of or the top issue.

I cringed too when Kerry repeatedly mentioned his Vietnam service. All being used of course to prove he was tough and could handle terrorism. I'm not sure all Vietnam vets are happy with his constant parading of his service.

Hmmm superdave I'm dismayed by your comments. Infact allow me to enlighten you on just a few achievements of the Bush Administration in only 4 years:

1. School vouchers

2. Faith based initiative to help the underprivileged and poor has been a success.

3. Handling of the Taliban and Afghanistan, liberating millions and offering hope and freedom to even more. Taking part in serving as a pillar of democracy in the middle east.

4. Biggest tax cut in our countries history, just as he had promised.

5. Fighting against affirmative action and opposing special interest groups. Minorities should be treated like everyone else. Not like inferiors that need special benefits to excel.

6. Going balls out against the U.N. and not allowing the interests of foreign governments to dictate the scope of the United States.

7. First president in History to provide funding for stem cell research.

8. No child left behind program initiatives backed by the first lady to add more substance to public schooling.

9. Dismantling Al Queda and putting an axe in the terrorist global network.

10. Record high in home ownership particularly with minorities.

Here are just a handful of achievements Superdave, but I have to say that I do agree with your comments on Kerrys exploitation of his own service in Vietnam. Here is an interesting article from the Weekly Standard that will give everybody a lot more insight into Kerrys actual service during that time, but particularly his actions after the war, which is the real point here. There is also a link to his actual transcript from his infamous testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, wherein he said he and those he spoke for were "ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia. .

. . And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom . . . is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy."

Yeah I know...see it for yourself here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/521fndbd.asp

Be sure to read the part in the middle of the second page where John Kerry, as he proudly told the Senate, met with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong delegations in Paris in May 1970. The guy was meeting face to face with the enemy in France to discuss peace proposals administered by the North Vietnamese, while Americans were still fighting and dying in Vietnam. WTF
Everybody, no matter your political affiliation, should read this article. Its atrocious and a direct slap in the face to all veterans who served during that era.

[esef]

Re:: RNC in NYC

[krelm]

Re:: RNC in NYC

Oh lordy, neur0t0xin64, you do crack me up. I think we both must be misunderstanding the tone in each others' posts. My post was not meant to be emotional at all - it takes a lot more than political debate in a music forum to get me really pissed off. Basically, you brought up credibility in your post before. My response was meant to point out that your typical style of "debate" (ie, taking things out of context and using them to fallaciously hurl personal insults) doesn't exactly lend to your credibility. No need to be gentle with me - I'm about as thick-skinned as they come - just look if you are taking something out of context which is overall pointless, or changes the meaning of what is said. It's more constructive in a "debate".

However, I'll just take your rants from now as just a friendly, humorous aside...you baby-eating ultra-right-wing homophobic twat. Bring it on, bitch. :P

But I'll still take that beer if it's up for grabs.

Anyways.....

Regarding Kerry's proposed defense policy, give me references to his specific propositions that make him a pussy on defense or a "punk ass" (heh heh - I thought the bumper stickers proved that Bush was the "punk ass chump" ) on foreign policy. Show me how on his platform that he is "a pussy" compared to Bush. The main overall difference between these two guys is that Kerry claims that he wants to work more in the international community than Bush - which I think is a load of bullshit, based on past presidents, democratic and republican.

The voting against the 87 billion for the military is an old and tired argument. He (and most democrats) voted against it because
1) he was in support of a different version of the bill which had more accountability, ie it was payed for with taxes (he is a democrat, after all )
2) it was meant to be a show of disapproval against how the Bush administration has handled Iraq
Can I have my million dollars now?

The absentee rate at the intelligence committee hearings is not a good thing, obviously, but I don't see that as the lone indicating factor in how Kerry's foreign & defense policy will be. This is also in reference to the public hearings - I would be more interested to know if Kerry had aides there to get the information for him. These guys all have a staff to take care of that sort of shit for them. But it's a really minor statistical point in the grand scheme of things.

I can't believe I'm defending this turkey. My point all along being (and please, argue this - the semantics are getting old), I don't feel that either Kerry or Bush is more suited to fight the war on terror where it is potentially most damaging - in US financial interests abroad. Which has nothing to do with ones willingness to be a "tough guy" on defense or foreign policy....

These guys are 2 sides of the same fucking coin, and it's worth less than a penny.

[krelm]

These terrorists are the worst kind, they turn to violence and mass murder not out of political ideology but out of religious fanatisism. Politics you can argue, religion you cant!

Point taken. Religious fanaticism is definitely at the root. The Iraq and Israel points are more in reference to what I have seen in statements and demands released by these guys - the 2 most commonly stated reasons. However, you are 100% correct that the root is a fanatical bastardization of Islam which is going to stay around no matter what the US (or any country) does. Even *if* the US immediately pulled out of Iraq and cut off all ties to Israel (neither of which could or should happen), terrorists would still find issue with the states on something - leading globalisation, spread of western culture, financial "intrusion" into Arabic countries, etc etc. Neither of which I see Bush or Kerry differing in much at all....

[neur0t0xin64]

Re:: RNC in NYC

[quote="krelm"]
However, I'll just take your rants from now as just a friendly, humorous aside...you baby-eating ultra-right-wing homophobic twat. Bring it on, bitch. :P

But I'll still take that beer if it's up for grabs.

Anyways.....

Regarding Kerry's proposed defense policy, give me references to his specific propositions that make him a pussy on defense or a "punk ass" (heh heh - I thought the bumper stickers proved that Bush was the "punk ass chump" ) on foreign policy. Show me how on his platform that he is "a pussy" compared to Bush. The main overall difference between these two guys is that Kerry claims that he wants to work more in the international community than Bush - which I think is a load of bullshit, based on past presidents, democratic and republican.


The absentee rate at the intelligence committee hearings is not a good thing, obviously, but I don't see that as the lone indicating factor in how Kerry's foreign & defense policy will be. This is also in reference to the public hearings - I would be more interested to know if Kerry had aides there to get the information for him. These guys all have a staff to take care of that sort of shit for them. But it's a really minor statistical point in the grand scheme of things.

I can't believe I'm defending this turkey. My point all along being (and please, argue this - the semantics are getting old), I don't feel that either Kerry or Bush is more suited to fight the war on terror where it is potentially most damaging - in US financial interests abroad. Which has nothing to do with ones willingness to be a "tough guy" on defense or foreign policy....[quote="krelm"]

Haa...ok good now were talking, homophobic twat thing made me laugh. Although I have to admit im more of a moderate than ultra right wing.

Now Krelm, most of the time you ask me to support all of the things you already know, and it gets tiresome, but I will appease you here. It is undeniable that Kerry holds a softer position on foreign policy than Bush. To reference what I said about Kerrys saying an offensive position will encourage terrorism: here you go:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/03/politics/main633637.shtml

So Krelm the main overall difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry would 'work' more in the international community, and then, when you site this as the 'MAIN' overall difference, your very next line is that you too think its bullshit???!!! Krelm Im having a hard time understanding you opinion here, mate, as well as your position. Do you even have one here? Or are you just wasting my time, if so pretty mean joke here. Fact is Iraq violated international sanctions 18 times, and through international intelligence we learned there is an imminent thread of WMDs. Now apart from Bush forming a strong coalition, just about everybody was on board with us except, guess who, yep France and Germany, both of who influence the United Nations significantly. Would your boy Kerry wait indefinantly, while having immediate threads of WMDs, for these two nations to support the war???? Britain, Ireland, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovachia, Russia, Spain, Italy, Holland, Switzerland, Pakistan, Israel, Australia, Japan, South Korea, ETC ETC......Is there a lack of coalition here???

Now this statement I am perplexed 'The absentee rate at the intelligence committee hearings is not a good thing, obviously, but I don't see that as the lone indicating factor in how Kerry's foreign & defense policy will be' R u overdosing on vicotins or morphine? Krelm...buddy, the guy wants to lead the only superpower in the world, wants to be the commander in chief of the leader in the free world, and you dont think that being absent for over 75% of the meetings in which members are briefed on all of the immediate threats to our nation, is not very relevant. Ooops dont want to put words in your mouth here...or that shouldnt be a single indicating factor of defense qualification. YOUR NUTS MAN! Your a psychopath. You would be 'MORE' interested to know if he had aides there, gathering the info for him, at a ultra classified debriefing of international threats to the United States!!!! Krelm your incompetency is demeaning. 'These guys have a staff to take care of these sort of things'!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH WHAAAAAAT THEEEEEE FUUUUUUUUUUCK?????????? Maybe Kerry should hire a personal asst. wipe his ass too(oh wait he does its John Edwards) Kerry must have hired an assistant to go tape his lectures in college for him, huh? Take his tests too. Hey Krelm, better yet, based on your theory, if Kerry was in office during 9/11, maybe he should have had an aid make the decision on Iraq and Weapons of Mass destruction!!!!!! There is no argument here! KRELM, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED BACK ON THESE FORUMS FOR 2 WEEKS. YOUR ON PUNISHMENT.

[HoneyBearKelly]

Re:: RNC in NYC

Hmmm superdave I'm dismayed by your comments. Infact allow me to enlighten you on just a few achievements of the Bush Administration in only 4 years:

1. School vouchers

2. Faith based initiative to help the underprivileged and poor has been a success.

3. Handling of the Taliban and Afghanistan, liberating millions and offering hope and freedom to even more. Taking part in serving as a pillar of democracy in the middle east.

4. Biggest tax cut in our countries history, just as he had promised.

5. Fighting against affirmative action and opposing special interest groups. Minorities should be treated like everyone else. Not like inferiors that need special benefits to excel.

6. Going balls out against the U.N. and not allowing the interests of foreign governments to dictate the scope of the United States.

7. First president in History to provide funding for stem cell research.

8. No child left behind program initiatives backed by the first lady to add more substance to public schooling.

9. Dismantling Al Queda and putting an axe in the terrorist global network.

10. Record high in home ownership particularly with minorities.

I'm going to take your points 1 by 1.

1 - School vouchers average about $3000. Tuition for grades K-12 average $7,000. Where does a poor family go for the extra $4,000?

2 - Faith based? Who's faith? There's a reason the Founding Fathers wanted to keep religion separated from government. This is a democratic republic not a theocracy.

3 - Afghanistan? The Taliban? This ADD president got over them faster than I did my last boyfriend. BTW where is Osama? The Middle East? They fucking hate us. As does most of the world. All the compassion and good feeling the rest of the world had for us after 9/11 was squandered by this dickhead.

4 - Biggest tax cut? The middle class is paying more taxes now than they ever did. Oh you mean for his corporate buddies. Yeah they're doing real well. They even get a tax break when they take a job from somebody whose barely making it and send it to India.

5 - I do agree with you in part about affirmative action. It did what it was suppose to do now it's time to let it go. BTW the biggest winners in the affirmative action derby - white women.

6 - The U.N.? They could have helped us. Terrorists, drug runners and all sorts of nasties went global. We cannot isolate ourselves or we're really going to be in big trouble.

7 - Stem cell research? Bushito put Laura in attack mode. Do a google search and you'll see what I mean.

8 - No child left behind? Is this the charming program that gives schools the choice of "do it my way or I'll pull your funding?"

9 - Al Queda? I got sad news for you. They're still out there. And not just in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

10 - To go along with record high evictions and foreclosures.

[toasty]

regarding number 10, I would add that, although this is obviously a good thing, it is due in large part to the fact that interest rates are rock bottom and have been for the last couple of years. While that's great for the housing market, it is not good for the investment market that looks to federal interest rates. In that respect, it is kinda a double-edged sword.

Of course, I was able to take advantage of those great rates, so this is not really a complaint, just an observation.

[krelm]

Re:: RNC in NYC

Haa...ok good now were talking, homophobic twat thing made me laugh. Although I have to admit im more of a moderate than ultra right wing.

So you admit being a homophobic twat then? :P

Now Krelm, most of the time you ask me to support all of the things you already know, and it gets tiresome, but I will appease you here.

I ask you to provide links because you too often take things out of context, which often completely changes the entire meaning.

It is undeniable that Kerry holds a softer position on foreign policy than Bush. To reference what I said about Kerrys saying an offensive position will encourage terrorism: here you go:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/03/politics/main633637.shtml

Thanks you for the supporting link - finally. Kerry is unfortunately overly vague in his statements in that article. He talks about the "policies of the administration" arousing more terrorists, but he's never actually talking about which policies. Is he talking about Iraq? Afghanistan? Working with Pakistan? This gets to a big problem I have with the guy - I want to see what he proposes otherwise (nothing, IMO). He's good at critisizing Bush without giving any specific alternative policies.

But once again, I think in this case, Kerry is talking a bunch of BS there purely to appeal to the anti-Bush sentiment without actually proposing any real alternatives.

And, for the record, I do feel that the Iraq fiasco, in particular, has fueled more anti-US sentiment and created more terrorists than it has gotten rid of. Going into Afghanistan was a good move and did cripple Al Queda. But invading Iraq has been highly counterproductive in the war on terrorism, IMO.

So Krelm the main overall difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry would 'work' more in the international community, and then, when you site this as the 'MAIN' overall difference, your very next line is that you too think its bullshit???!!! Krelm Im having a hard time understanding you opinion here, mate, as well as your position. Do you even have one here?

Right - to clarify, I'm saying that Kerry claims he is going to be less bullheaded and less unilateral on foreign policy. He claims, contrary to what he claims Bush has done, that he is going to attain an international consensus on US actions. I'm saying that I don't believe him ONE BIT on that - every president in recent memory has done what they wanted to in regards to foreign policy, with or without the consensus of other nations. It's just been most evident and publicised with Bush - mainly because of Iraq. For Kerry to do what he is saying he will do (work more in the international community) he will have to reverse the trends of Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, etc etc. Not gonna happen. He's either naively optimistic or lying. Take your pick.

In either case (Bush or Kerry), "going it alone" with the war on terror is going to be IMO ineffectual to solving biggest threats to US interests, which I've already stated in earlier posts here.

Clear now?

This argument is getting old - I feel like I'm repeating myself and you are constantly missing the point.

Would your boy Kerry wait indefinantly, while having immediate threads of WMDs, for these two nations to support the war???? Britain, Ireland, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovachia, Russia, Spain, Italy, Holland, Switzerland, Pakistan, Israel, Australia, Japan, South Korea, ETC ETC......Is there a lack of coalition here???

1. Don't call Kerry "my boy". I like the guy about as much as I like Bush, which is not at all.
2. By your definition, Bush did got an international consensus on Iraq - just as Kerry is claiming he would do.

Point being, I don't think that Kerry's "soft talk" on foreign policy is all it's cracked up to be. Frankly, it's a load of shit - he's going to be just as unilateral as past presidents.

On the whole security briefing attendance record thing, I think it comes down to a difference of opinion on the gravity of Kerry's attendance record. You think that is firm undeniable evidence enough to prove that Kerry is going to let the terrorists run free over the US and bomb whoever and wherever they want. I think it is definitely a negative point, but one of many for either candidate. I'm also used to statistics which are thrown around in campaigns usually being meaningless - they always leave something out. I would take a similar statistic on Bush's record just about as seriously.

Anyways, I think we just have a difference of opinion with this whole topic - you think Kerry is going to be a pussy with foreign policy. I think he's not going to be any better than Bush or previous presidents. You think Kerry is going to be weak on the war on terrorism. I think he and Bush will be equal - effective in some regards (homeland security), highly ineffective in others (securing US financial interests abroad). Arguing about the semantics is boring.

KRELM, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED BACK ON THESE FORUMS FOR 2 WEEKS. YOUR ON PUNISHMENT.

How does 3 days sound? I'm leaving town until Saturday or Sunday. :P

[neur0t0xin64]

SHiiit Krelm come back man, I like what we have going here now. You are a great sport and I really do respect your opinions, and we probably agree on alot more than what I let on to, but we have to fight about something. hah... didnt mean to get you all worked up over the 'kerry is your boy thing' hah..thats fuunny. your like 'thats not my boy man' have a safe trip Krelm, where you going?

Kelly, ok your back to being a honeybear. your a cool chick. Although I have to admit Im not in the least bit religous, infact im sure there is no god at all, but I just think they're doing some pretty great things around the world with faith based programs, lots of positive stuff going on there. But honey, you have to admit, the U.N. pretty much sucks donkey dick.