Democrat Zell Miller just brought a tear to my eye...
- Thread starter Scrubking
- Start date
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.
Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.
And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.
Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.
And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?
The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.
There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.
In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.
President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."
In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.
And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.
And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.
Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.
Where are such statesmen today?
Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?
Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.
What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?
I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.
It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.
Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.
Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.
And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.
Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.
Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.
For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.
No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.
But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.
They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.
It is not their patriotism — it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.
They were wrong.
They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.
They were wrong.
And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.
Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.
The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.
The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.
The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.
I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.
This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?
U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?
Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.
Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.
Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations
Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.
I want Bush to decide.
John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.
That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.
Free for how long?
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.
As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.
As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. 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.
George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.
John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.
No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.
George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.
From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.
I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.
I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.
He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.
I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.
The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.
This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.
The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.
Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.
In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.
Thank you.
God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.
Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.
And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.
Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.
And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?
The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.
There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush.
In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.
President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."
In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.
And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.
And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.
Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.
Where are such statesmen today?
Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?
Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.
What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?
I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.
It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.
Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.
Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.
And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.
Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.
Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.
Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.
For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.
No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.
But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.
They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.
It is not their patriotism — it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.
They were wrong.
They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.
They were wrong.
And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.
Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.
The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.
The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.
The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.
I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.
This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?
U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?
Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.
Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.
Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations
Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.
I want Bush to decide.
John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.
That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.
Free for how long?
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.
As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.
As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. 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.
George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.
John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.
No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.
George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.
From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.
I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.
I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.
He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.
I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.
The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.
This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.
The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.
Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.
In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.
Thank you.
God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.
"Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric."
&
"He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words."
Are my two favorite lines because they pretty much sum up why I'm voting for Bush.
&
"He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words."
Are my two favorite lines because they pretty much sum up why I'm voting for Bush.
Zenithian Legend
Banned
[quote name='David85'][quote name='Scrubking'] Democrat Zell Miller just brought a tear to my eye...[/quote]
Someone is a girly man.
[/quote]
Strange that you of all people would say that...
but an Arnold quote is an Arnold quote and comical either way.
Someone is a girly man.
[/quote]Strange that you of all people would say that...
but an Arnold quote is an Arnold quote and comical either way.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I guess it's a good speech if you ignore all the facts. Classic Republican spin. I really hope Miller's on the GOP payroll by now. He's got their talking points down cold.
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
Zell Miller, the proud Bush supporter, announced that we should stop investigating 9/11 immediately because it could "energize our enemies and demoralize our troops." That's right - according to Miller, finding out why 3,000 people were killed on September 11 so that we can make sure it doesn't happen again is the same as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. See, on Planet Zell, it's Richard Clarke who's really to blame for 9/11 because he was in the "catbird seat" for ten years. Never mind that Clarke was practically begging Bush to pay attention to al Qaeda and Bush ignored him - has everyone forgotten that Our Great Leader is absolutely not responsible for anything at all that happens under his watch? Said Miller, "It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps - the wimps and the warriors." No Zell, if this country is dividing itself into two camps it's between people who want the truth and people who've got their noses so far up Bush's butt that they've lost their minds.
http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=35050
http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=35050
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
Zell goes wild
Maybe Zell Miller was just strung too tight following his wild-eyed attack on John Kerry Wednesday night. But following his primetime convention address he made the rounds on the cable TV circuit and stole the show -- and not in a good way. Miller’s speech was so over-the-top (he essentially questioned Kerry’s loyalty to America), it prompted mild-mannered talking head David Gergen to compare Miller to racist demagogue Lester Maddox, while Time’s Joe Klein had to pick his jaw up off the ground before he could analyze it. But Miller's post-speech cable performance was even more jaw-dropping, as he first badly fumbled questions from CNN anchors, then lost it with "Hardball's" Chris Matthews, repeatedly challenging the MSNBC host to a duel and telling him to "shut up."
On CNN and came under respectful but close questioning from Wolf Blitzer, Judy Woodruff and Jeff Greenfield, who pressed the wayward Democrat about why he mocked Kerry for using the phrase "occupiers" when describing U.S. troops in Iraq (Miller prefers "liberators"), when President Bush has himself used the same phrase for the same U.S. troops. Miller clearly had no idea that was the case and passed on giving a response. He was also asked why just three years ago he had introduced Kerry in Georgia as an American hero who had worked hard for our nation’s security (the speech is still up on Miller's Web site.) Miller suggested he was new to the Senate at the time and basically didn’t know what he was talking about.
And about those weapons system votes that Miller criticized Kerry for making over a decade ago, wasn’t it true while as Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney raised similar doubts about those very same systems? Miller said he’d let Cheney answer that himself. Finally, Blitzer asked Miller why he looked so angry during his speech, and couldn't that hurt the cause he was pushing? Miller, who in fact looked like he was suffering from flashback Atlanta road rage at the podium periodically, said he was sorry if he came across as angry because he didn’t mean to.
But that was just the warm up. Next it was over to Chris Matthews’ "Hardball" on MSNBC where Miller, perhaps still bruised by his wobbly CNN showing, just plain lost it. Actually, Miller appeared from Madison Square Garden, while "Hardball’s" set was over in Herald Square. And when Miller was announced he was greeted with a chorus of "boos" by the crowd of local Democrats assembled behind the "Hardball" taping area. Things went downhill for Miller from there.
Matthews asked Miller to defend his speech, and particularly his allegations that John Kerry voted "against" various defense appropriations. (As both Matthews and Miller know, voting against a large appropriations bill doesn't necessarily mean that you disapprove of every part of the bill). Miller got progressively angrier as Matthews persisted in holding him to his statement, telling Matthews several times that he wished he was in the studio so he could "get up in your face."
As Miller steamed, Matthews asked him if he thought that he was helping the political discourse in the country, and then, whether he even thought he was helping the Republicans by what he was saying. At that point Miller’s melt down peaked. He started waving his arms around, demanding Matthews "shut up" and let him answer the question. Miller then lapsed into a dialogue with himself wondering, “I don’t know why I even came on this program,” before returning to Matthews and announcing he wished they lived in a previous era because he would have "challenged you to a duel."
Thursday morning Miller may deny he was serious when he said all of that, but the semi-deranged expression on his face at that moment suggested he'd truly lost control. Matthews, slightly embarrassed by the whole thing, laughed off Miller's left field explosion, and invited him back tonight in person for a "more civil discussion." More importantly, Matthews insisted the show would get great ratings because everybody would be waiting to see if Miller was going to "beat me up."
Later country star Larry Gatlin told MSNBC's Ron Reagan that Matthews was "out of line" and "rude." When the live audience booed Gatlin told them "shut up or we'll have another duel." Another example of how Republicans are making good on George Bush's 2000 promise to "change the tone" of American politics -- apparently substituting dueling for debate. "Tonight was the night of the Angry White Men at the Republican convention," said former Howard Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi, quickly adding "I don't mean that in a bad way," as if he was just too tired to fight a duel over it.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html
Maybe Zell Miller was just strung too tight following his wild-eyed attack on John Kerry Wednesday night. But following his primetime convention address he made the rounds on the cable TV circuit and stole the show -- and not in a good way. Miller’s speech was so over-the-top (he essentially questioned Kerry’s loyalty to America), it prompted mild-mannered talking head David Gergen to compare Miller to racist demagogue Lester Maddox, while Time’s Joe Klein had to pick his jaw up off the ground before he could analyze it. But Miller's post-speech cable performance was even more jaw-dropping, as he first badly fumbled questions from CNN anchors, then lost it with "Hardball's" Chris Matthews, repeatedly challenging the MSNBC host to a duel and telling him to "shut up."
On CNN and came under respectful but close questioning from Wolf Blitzer, Judy Woodruff and Jeff Greenfield, who pressed the wayward Democrat about why he mocked Kerry for using the phrase "occupiers" when describing U.S. troops in Iraq (Miller prefers "liberators"), when President Bush has himself used the same phrase for the same U.S. troops. Miller clearly had no idea that was the case and passed on giving a response. He was also asked why just three years ago he had introduced Kerry in Georgia as an American hero who had worked hard for our nation’s security (the speech is still up on Miller's Web site.) Miller suggested he was new to the Senate at the time and basically didn’t know what he was talking about.
And about those weapons system votes that Miller criticized Kerry for making over a decade ago, wasn’t it true while as Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney raised similar doubts about those very same systems? Miller said he’d let Cheney answer that himself. Finally, Blitzer asked Miller why he looked so angry during his speech, and couldn't that hurt the cause he was pushing? Miller, who in fact looked like he was suffering from flashback Atlanta road rage at the podium periodically, said he was sorry if he came across as angry because he didn’t mean to.
But that was just the warm up. Next it was over to Chris Matthews’ "Hardball" on MSNBC where Miller, perhaps still bruised by his wobbly CNN showing, just plain lost it. Actually, Miller appeared from Madison Square Garden, while "Hardball’s" set was over in Herald Square. And when Miller was announced he was greeted with a chorus of "boos" by the crowd of local Democrats assembled behind the "Hardball" taping area. Things went downhill for Miller from there.
Matthews asked Miller to defend his speech, and particularly his allegations that John Kerry voted "against" various defense appropriations. (As both Matthews and Miller know, voting against a large appropriations bill doesn't necessarily mean that you disapprove of every part of the bill). Miller got progressively angrier as Matthews persisted in holding him to his statement, telling Matthews several times that he wished he was in the studio so he could "get up in your face."
As Miller steamed, Matthews asked him if he thought that he was helping the political discourse in the country, and then, whether he even thought he was helping the Republicans by what he was saying. At that point Miller’s melt down peaked. He started waving his arms around, demanding Matthews "shut up" and let him answer the question. Miller then lapsed into a dialogue with himself wondering, “I don’t know why I even came on this program,” before returning to Matthews and announcing he wished they lived in a previous era because he would have "challenged you to a duel."
Thursday morning Miller may deny he was serious when he said all of that, but the semi-deranged expression on his face at that moment suggested he'd truly lost control. Matthews, slightly embarrassed by the whole thing, laughed off Miller's left field explosion, and invited him back tonight in person for a "more civil discussion." More importantly, Matthews insisted the show would get great ratings because everybody would be waiting to see if Miller was going to "beat me up."
Later country star Larry Gatlin told MSNBC's Ron Reagan that Matthews was "out of line" and "rude." When the live audience booed Gatlin told them "shut up or we'll have another duel." Another example of how Republicans are making good on George Bush's 2000 promise to "change the tone" of American politics -- apparently substituting dueling for debate. "Tonight was the night of the Angry White Men at the Republican convention," said former Howard Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi, quickly adding "I don't mean that in a bad way," as if he was just too tired to fight a duel over it.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room//index.html
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='David85'][quote name='Scrubking'] Democrat Zell Miller just brought a tear to my eye...[/quote]
Someone is a girly man.[/quote]
:lol:
Someone is a girly man.
[/quote]:lol:
David85
Banned
[quote name='Zenithian Legend'][quote name='David85'][quote name='Scrubking'] Democrat Zell Miller just brought a tear to my eye...[/quote]
Someone is a girly man.[/quote]
Strange that you of all people would say that...
but an Arnold quote is an Arnold quote and comical either way.[/quote]
First off it's funny, I would make fun of myself to get a laugh.
Second I don't see how it's a gay bashing comment. I never saw the SNL skits it was based on, so maybe those were antigay, but from what I get from Arnold saying is thta girly men equal wimpy men, so it's more of an anti women comment. Arnold didn't say anything about gays, but the crazy democrats came out and when "That's anto gay!!!" so they basicly made it antigay themselves.
I'm gay and I'm not girly at all, niether is my boyfriend. I know girly straight guys and non-girly gay guys so that's just anothe wrong streotype.
Someone is a girly man.
[/quote]Strange that you of all people would say that...
but an Arnold quote is an Arnold quote and comical either way.[/quote]
First off it's funny, I would make fun of myself to get a laugh.
Second I don't see how it's a gay bashing comment. I never saw the SNL skits it was based on, so maybe those were antigay, but from what I get from Arnold saying is thta girly men equal wimpy men, so it's more of an anti women comment. Arnold didn't say anything about gays, but the crazy democrats came out and when "That's anto gay!!!" so they basicly made it antigay themselves.
I'm gay and I'm not girly at all, niether is my boyfriend. I know girly straight guys and non-girly gay guys so that's just anothe wrong streotype.
- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
Zell Miller is a worse flip flopper than Kerry.
I still would like to hear someone from the Bush campaign talk of the economy instead of about terror or Kerry's voting record. The fact that there are not many jobs being created, people who do get jobs are working for less than half of what they were making, and Bush has not stepped up to the plate on the issue pretty much assures I am voting for Kerry even though I do not like him
I still would like to hear someone from the Bush campaign talk of the economy instead of about terror or Kerry's voting record. The fact that there are not many jobs being created, people who do get jobs are working for less than half of what they were making, and Bush has not stepped up to the plate on the issue pretty much assures I am voting for Kerry even though I do not like him
David85
Banned
My favorite is that all the Bush people want to talk about the future, because they can't talk about his pass, yet they come out every other day and make fun of Kerry's past. Hello, what happened to talking about the future?
So now I think they are just going to fund the Swifvet thing some more, that way it doesn't look like they are talknig about the pass.
So now I think they are just going to fund the Swifvet thing some more, that way it doesn't look like they are talknig about the pass.
yeah, zell looked like Kerry had punched his mom in the face. He didn't come off well, all the tv stations seem to be showing him look pretty damn mad. I thought they wanted to show moderates at the convention. The protesters out side looked less angry then zell did.
[quote name='David85']
Second I don't see how it's a gay bashing comment. I never saw the SNL skits it was based on, so maybe those were antigay, but from what I get from Arnold saying is thta girly men equal wimpy men, so it's more of an anti women comment. Arnold didn't say anything about gays, but the crazy democrats came out and when "That's anto gay!!!" so they basicly made it antigay themselves.
[/quote]
That's what I was thinking the whole time too. I vaguely remember the skits on SNL and don't remember them having any gay themes in them.
Second I don't see how it's a gay bashing comment. I never saw the SNL skits it was based on, so maybe those were antigay, but from what I get from Arnold saying is thta girly men equal wimpy men, so it's more of an anti women comment. Arnold didn't say anything about gays, but the crazy democrats came out and when "That's anto gay!!!" so they basicly made it antigay themselves.
[/quote]
That's what I was thinking the whole time too. I vaguely remember the skits on SNL and don't remember them having any gay themes in them.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
^ Thats what he looked like when he said it, too.
Spooky.
Spooky.
ElwoodCuse
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Scrubking']...As he completely and totally PWNED Kerry with his speech at the RNC.
I can't wait to hear the spin that will be spewed trying to defend against the long list of FACTS Miller used against Kerry.[/quote]
I can't wait to hear why I should take someone who uses "PWNED" in a political context seriously.
So he knew what to say to someone who already made up their mind about the election. Whoop dee freakin doo.
I can't wait to hear the spin that will be spewed trying to defend against the long list of FACTS Miller used against Kerry.[/quote]
I can't wait to hear why I should take someone who uses "PWNED" in a political context seriously.
So he knew what to say to someone who already made up their mind about the election. Whoop dee freakin doo.
Scrubking
CAGiversary!
I can't wait to hear why I should take someone who uses "PWNED" in a political context seriously.
This argument is getting really old - I guess it's an internet fad now to try to discredit people because of a word they say or they way they might say it. I guess it makes sense since so many idiots constantly bitch about typos in posts, etc.
Anyway, your argument is beyond stupid, and is likened to not picking up a one hundred dollar bill you found because it is torn in the middle.
This argument is getting really old - I guess it's an internet fad now to try to discredit people because of a word they say or they way they might say it. I guess it makes sense since so many idiots constantly bitch about typos in posts, etc.
Anyway, your argument is beyond stupid, and is likened to not picking up a one hundred dollar bill you found because it is torn in the middle.
Zell Miller's speech partially debunked.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=252
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=252
[quote name='dafoomie']Zell Miller's speech partially debunked.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=252[/quote]
[quote name='the debunking']Other Misleading Remarks
Note: This isn't the only misleading claim made at the Republican convention. Miller falsely claimed "Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations," when in fact Kerry has said no such thing.
And New York Gov. George Pataki made a similarly misleading statement Sept. 2 when he implied that Kerry would "just wait for the next attack" before using military force to defend the US.
What Kerry really said -- in his own acceptance speech -- is this: "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." That's the opposite of what Miller said Kerry "made clear."
[/quote]
"never hesitate to use force when it is required". Yet he, the DNC, most democratic voters, and the very nations' opinions revered by Kerry will say until blue from breathlessness is that there was a rush to war, there was no good cause or reason, and war is never a necessary option especially when diplomacy can be extended. Relentlessly, they paint our millitary action as an immoral pre-emptive strike, implying that a response is only required after being first attacked, and that pre-emption is to be avoided at all costs. When your enemies know your move before you touch your piece, you are at a disadvantage.
Miller was correct in his summary of Kerry's position. Knowing that Since Kerry's past views and voting record have been a result of "ill-advisement" (see the article, it IS a quote), we can therefore deduce that kerry's views are never really his own and he will lead by committe, by proxy, and only by the majority opinion of his commander or advisors.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=252[/quote]
[quote name='the debunking']Other Misleading Remarks
Note: This isn't the only misleading claim made at the Republican convention. Miller falsely claimed "Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations," when in fact Kerry has said no such thing.
And New York Gov. George Pataki made a similarly misleading statement Sept. 2 when he implied that Kerry would "just wait for the next attack" before using military force to defend the US.
What Kerry really said -- in his own acceptance speech -- is this: "I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security." That's the opposite of what Miller said Kerry "made clear."
[/quote]
"never hesitate to use force when it is required". Yet he, the DNC, most democratic voters, and the very nations' opinions revered by Kerry will say until blue from breathlessness is that there was a rush to war, there was no good cause or reason, and war is never a necessary option especially when diplomacy can be extended. Relentlessly, they paint our millitary action as an immoral pre-emptive strike, implying that a response is only required after being first attacked, and that pre-emption is to be avoided at all costs. When your enemies know your move before you touch your piece, you are at a disadvantage.
Miller was correct in his summary of Kerry's position. Knowing that Since Kerry's past views and voting record have been a result of "ill-advisement" (see the article, it IS a quote), we can therefore deduce that kerry's views are never really his own and he will lead by committe, by proxy, and only by the majority opinion of his commander or advisors.
There was a rush to war. There were causes and reasons, but none good enough to justify a war in Iraq, especially while Afghanistan is still ongoing, and they weren't the reasons we were given when the decision was made to go to war.
No. No one but the most extreme pacifist will tell you that war is never necessary. But an optional war is typicly not a necessary war.
It was pre-emptive. But what exactly was he pre-empting? Was Saddam going to attack the United States? With what? Sand bombs? Was he going to send his mighty army into the east coast?
Where do we draw the line on when pre-emption is necessary and when its not? I say, when you know someone is about to launch an attack directly at you, or your allies, then it is appropriate. For example, if we knew the Japanese were headed to Pearl Harbor, it would have been entirely appropriate to pre-emptively attack them. But what was Saddam about to do that was so dangerous that we needed to immediately pre-empt it?
The ill-advisement quote was in reference to his positions on specific weapons programs in 1984, before he was a Senator.
"the candidate called for cutting Ronald Reagan’s military budget by between $45 billion and $53 billion through (among other things) cancellation of the MX missile, B-1 bomber, anti-satellite weapons, and the “Star Wars” anti-missile program, along with several conventional weapons that have become mainstays of the present-day military, including the AH-64 Apache helicopter, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the F-14 and F-15 fighters. He also called for a 50% reduction in the Tomahawk cruise missile."
On technical issues such as highly complex weapons systems, I would want my President to take all the advisement he can get. Bush people often claim that he doesn't know everything but he has the right people around him. Isn't that the same thing?
As for the early 90's votes, all of his votes to cut things like the F-16, were fully supported by both Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney. However, your criticism is valid of his positions in 1984, 20 years ago.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Sadam was going to throw sand in our eyes and kick us in the shins then run away.
It's true.
It's true.
ZarathosNY
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Quackzilla']Sadam was going to throw sand in our eyes and kick us in the shins then run away.
It's true.[/quote]
And then hide in a hole in the ground
It's true.[/quote]
And then hide in a hole in the ground
[quote name='Scrubking']I can't wait to hear why I should take someone who uses "PWNED" in a political context seriously.
This argument is getting really old - I guess it's an internet fad now to try to discredit people because of a word they say or they way they might say it. I guess it makes sense since so many idiots constantly bitch about typos in posts, etc.
Anyway, your argument is beyond stupid, and is likened to not picking up a one hundred dollar bill you found because it is torn in the middle.[/quote]
To me it seems closer to not picking up a one-hundred dollar bill because the picture in the middle portrays Cartman.
This argument is getting really old - I guess it's an internet fad now to try to discredit people because of a word they say or they way they might say it. I guess it makes sense since so many idiots constantly bitch about typos in posts, etc.
Anyway, your argument is beyond stupid, and is likened to not picking up a one hundred dollar bill you found because it is torn in the middle.[/quote]
To me it seems closer to not picking up a one-hundred dollar bill because the picture in the middle portrays Cartman.
SwiftyLeZar
CAGiversary!
The best thing Schwarzenegger said at the convention (I don't know if he said it in the address) was when he was talking about the horror left in his homeland of Austria after the Soviets left:
"As a kid, I saw the Socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left"
Just one small problem: Arnold was born in 1947. He left Austria for the USA in 1968. Between 1945 and 1970, Austria was controlled by conservative chancellors - not socialists.
I also liked when he said, "This is like winning an Oscar - as if I would know," and when he said the guy came up to him and told him that he was as good a politician as he was an actor and he said, "What a cheap shot." And when he said the Democrats should've called their convention "True Lies" - at that point I was waiting for a cane to emerge and yank him offstage. Oh, and who could forget him calling people who criticize the economy "girlie-men!" Or when he said the Republicans would "terminate" terrorism!"
Now I don't have my calculator with me - but I know that's alot of references to his film career. Truly, this speech embodied what Arnie's political career is all about.
"As a kid, I saw the Socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left"
Just one small problem: Arnold was born in 1947. He left Austria for the USA in 1968. Between 1945 and 1970, Austria was controlled by conservative chancellors - not socialists.
I also liked when he said, "This is like winning an Oscar - as if I would know," and when he said the guy came up to him and told him that he was as good a politician as he was an actor and he said, "What a cheap shot." And when he said the Democrats should've called their convention "True Lies" - at that point I was waiting for a cane to emerge and yank him offstage. Oh, and who could forget him calling people who criticize the economy "girlie-men!" Or when he said the Republicans would "terminate" terrorism!"
Now I don't have my calculator with me - but I know that's alot of references to his film career. Truly, this speech embodied what Arnie's political career is all about.
SwiftyLeZar
CAGiversary!
"I can't wait to hear the spin that will be spewed trying to defend against the long list of FACTS Miller used against Kerry."
Well, I just read over Zell's speech, and I have a few problems:
-- "It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag."
This is one thing I love to hear: people who attack flag-burning by evoking the memory of the troops who died for the right to do such a thing. "Our brave soldiers fought and died for your right to burn that flag, and I'll be damned if you're going to disgrace their memory by exercising it!"
-- "And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."
-- "No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home."
Really, Mr. Miller? You came throw your support to George Bush, but you say that no one should even dare think about being the Commander-in-Chief if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators rather than occupiers?
Well, Zell, don't attack Kerry over that. Tell it to the Chief:
"...[the Iraqi people] were happy -- they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either." - George W. Bush, White House Press Conference, April 13, 2004
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html - and before we get into a semantics quibble over it, to be occupied requires occupiers to do the occupying - guess who Bush was referring to as the occupiers? The American people in Iraq... The soldiers!)
Ladies and gentlemen, even one of Bush's strongest supporters thinks Bush shouldn't dare to even think about being the Commander-in-Chief.
--"Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security. But Americans need to know the facts."
[Zell then proceeds to give a list of said weapons systems, a list that includes the B-1 Bomber, the B-2 Bomber, the F-14A Tomcats, the F-14D, the Apache helicopter, the F-15 Eagles, and a few others]
But there's something fishy about this little factoid - Kerry has never voted for or against these weapons, because they never came up for a vote.
That's right - neither John Kerry nor any other senator has ever tried to "shut down" these weapon systems.
What Miller is referring to are two defense appropriations bills that Kerry voted against. What Zell has done is plucked some weapons systems out of that bill and said that Kerry was voting to "shut them down." By the same logic, Zell could've said that Kerry voted to "shut down" the entire military, but that would've made even the truth-blind Republican idealogues wonder if he was being honest.
So are these some of those "facts" you were talking about?
One more, and I think this one really sums Zell Miller up quite well:
-- "For more than twenty 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."
Really, Zell? For twenty years he has been more wrong, weak, and wobbly than any other national figure? Is that why, introducing him at a dinner of the Democratic Party of Georgia three years ago (which by my calculation, is less than twenty years meaning he was still "weak," "wrong," and "wobbly" at ths time), you had this to say about him:
"My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend."
(http://miller.senate.gov/speeches/030101jjdinner.htm)
So which is it, Zell? Is Kerry "weak" and "wobbly," or "one of this party's greatest leaders"? Me thinketh the GOP hath buyeth Mr. Miller off!
Regardless, you can see why Zell Miller said of Bush, "... I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning."
Apparently, Zell likes it when people take 3 years to flip-flop, instead of one day.
Well, I just read over Zell's speech, and I have a few problems:
-- "It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag."
This is one thing I love to hear: people who attack flag-burning by evoking the memory of the troops who died for the right to do such a thing. "Our brave soldiers fought and died for your right to burn that flag, and I'll be damned if you're going to disgrace their memory by exercising it!"
-- "And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."
-- "No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home."
Really, Mr. Miller? You came throw your support to George Bush, but you say that no one should even dare think about being the Commander-in-Chief if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators rather than occupiers?
Well, Zell, don't attack Kerry over that. Tell it to the Chief:
"...[the Iraqi people] were happy -- they're not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I were occupied either." - George W. Bush, White House Press Conference, April 13, 2004
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html - and before we get into a semantics quibble over it, to be occupied requires occupiers to do the occupying - guess who Bush was referring to as the occupiers? The American people in Iraq... The soldiers!)
Ladies and gentlemen, even one of Bush's strongest supporters thinks Bush shouldn't dare to even think about being the Commander-in-Chief.
--"Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security. But Americans need to know the facts."
[Zell then proceeds to give a list of said weapons systems, a list that includes the B-1 Bomber, the B-2 Bomber, the F-14A Tomcats, the F-14D, the Apache helicopter, the F-15 Eagles, and a few others]
But there's something fishy about this little factoid - Kerry has never voted for or against these weapons, because they never came up for a vote.
That's right - neither John Kerry nor any other senator has ever tried to "shut down" these weapon systems.
What Miller is referring to are two defense appropriations bills that Kerry voted against. What Zell has done is plucked some weapons systems out of that bill and said that Kerry was voting to "shut them down." By the same logic, Zell could've said that Kerry voted to "shut down" the entire military, but that would've made even the truth-blind Republican idealogues wonder if he was being honest.
So are these some of those "facts" you were talking about?
One more, and I think this one really sums Zell Miller up quite well:
-- "For more than twenty 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."
Really, Zell? For twenty years he has been more wrong, weak, and wobbly than any other national figure? Is that why, introducing him at a dinner of the Democratic Party of Georgia three years ago (which by my calculation, is less than twenty years meaning he was still "weak," "wrong," and "wobbly" at ths time), you had this to say about him:
"My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders – and a good friend."
(http://miller.senate.gov/speeches/030101jjdinner.htm)
So which is it, Zell? Is Kerry "weak" and "wobbly," or "one of this party's greatest leaders"? Me thinketh the GOP hath buyeth Mr. Miller off!
Regardless, you can see why Zell Miller said of Bush, "... I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning."
Apparently, Zell likes it when people take 3 years to flip-flop, instead of one day.
bread's done