2008 Republican Convention Thread

[quote name='depascal22']Hell, I agree with George Washington that parties and cliques have no place in politics.[/QUOTE]

You are a wise man, sir, in this respect at least.
 
Hell, I'll vote for the next politician that wants to stop locking up people for smoking weed. What I need to do is move back the West but my wife is from Indiana and well, I'm from Indiana.

I probably am a Libertarian but I'm still going for Obama. It's that I necessarily believe that he's the most qualified man to run for President but I think our country desperately needs someone that doesn't come from the Rich White Man mold.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I feel bad for the handfull of smart Republican women out there. There are some like that Gretta chick and the other Rep that was considered for a McCain VP slot(cant think of her name right now she is old and a Senator)but by and large the parties woman are made up of smiling stepford wives. Seriously just watch Fox News.....every last freaking Republican woman is a young prettty woman(usually blonde)whose face looks freaking super imposed in the smiling position.....worse yet they somehow seem to be even more ignorant then the damned men.[/QUOTE]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420161,00.html

EDIT:
And from a more logical angle (and less inflammatory) is pretty much the same message and almost exactly what I've been explaining to my friends all along:

[quote name='"Dick Morris"']WHY SHE REALLY SCARES THEM
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the The New York Post on September 12, 2008

Printer-Friendly Version

For two weeks, Democrats and their media allies have leveled scorching fire at Sarah Palin. It's not having much effect, but they keep at it anyway.

The latest Fox News poll shows Palin with a 54-27 favorable/unfavorable ratio, which compares well with Barack Obama's 57-36, John McCain's 60-33 and Joe Biden's 51-29. (Of the four, she's the most popular).

Why do Democrats feel so threatened? They've even stopped attacking McCain and President Bush to launch a vicious and sexist barrage at her that would normally make a feminist angry and a Democrat blush.

Basically, it's this: John McCain only endangers Democratic chances of victory this November, but Sarah Palin is an existential threat to the Democratic Party.

She threatens a core element of the party's base - women

When an African-American like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell or Condi Rice rises to prominence as a Republican, he or she endangers the Democratic coalition. So would a Republican labor leader.

And so, above all, does the woman Republican running for vice president.

Democrats can't stomach seeing the feminist movement's impetus for greater female political participation and empowerment "hijacked" by a pro-life woman who espouses traditional values. They must obliterate her, lest her popularity eat away at their party's core.

So the Democrats are hysterical in their attacks on her. South Carolina's Democratic Party chairwoman, Carol Fowler (wife of a national party chairman), said that the only qualification Palin had for vice president was that she hadn't had an abortion. Tabloids are digging up dirt on Palin's children. And liberal bloggers have suggested that Palin would neglect her children if she were elected (while the Democratic candidate has young children at home, too).

That liberals would resort to such blatant sexism shows their desperation.

But the Fox News poll of Sept. 8-9 indicates a deeper reality of Palin's popularity. On the question of which of the four candidates best understands what day-to-day life is like in America, Palin finished first, with 33 percent. (Obama drew 32 percent, McCain 17 percent and Biden 10 percent.)

She's not popular because she's a radical feminist or pro-choice advocate. It's because she understands what it's like to be a woman in 21st century America.

She's never ascended to the elite, so she doesn't need to stoop to conquer as most well-heeled feminist leaders must. She lives far from the plastic pseudoreality where a fossilized ideology substitutes for human compassion and empathy. As such, she rises above the slogans of both the left and the right and proposes to bring to Washington a dose of reality - a taste of real life.

She may become the first woman in national office - yet the Democrats, feminists and liberals can't control her, and that burns them up.

Elections come and go, but Palin is a far more fundamental threat to the Democratic Party. And that's why they fear her so.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='MorPhiend']http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420161,00.html[/quote]

Oh this is humorous. Let me parse it:

According to many in the media, we truly have discovered someone worse than Hitler — and it's Sarah Palin.
Click to expand...

Godwin's law right out of the gate. This guy is good!

Head to any left-wing blog or even CNN for that matter and you'll find the zaniest of conspiracies -- froth that even a dude with rabies would find unseemly.
Click to expand...

Yes they all have the same uniform opinion, and it's all off-the-charts loony tunes. No need to give examples, why pin yourself down when innuendo will do nicely.

So how can one person create so much bile among folks who claim to be the most tolerant in the universe? I mean, liberals are the good people: They're open-minded, caring and of course, fair.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know - maybe the only thing liberals are intolerant towards is intolerance.

But somehow, a Republican lady in her 40s is exempt from this treatment. Perhaps, she truly is the devil in a dress, a ghoul that eats children and pollutes the planet and possibly beats Barack Obama, the patron saint of every customer buying wheat germ in bulk at GNC.

But I know the real reason why every single elitist media type is terrified of her. They've never met her. And by "her," I don't mean Sarah Palin. I mean "her", an actual normal woman with a bunch of kids, an average husband and no desire to watch "The L Word."

She's scary to these folks the way Wal-Mart is scary to them: Both are alien to someone who blogs about their chakras. They won't go there, because they've never been there.
Click to expand...

Nice - digs at lesbians, hinduism, and body builders. All people not likely to be considered "us" by anyone who reads this fool's blog.

To them, hating Sarah Palin is a symptom of larger bigotry against the rest of us, the normal. If they saw her at a party, they would wonder how she got in. She's the anti-Obama, the anti-New York Times, the anti-everything that Tim Robbins loves, which is why I love her — and you should too.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.
Click to expand...

And close with an even more spectacular example of Godwin's law. Bravo good sir, bravo!
 
Good job, camoor. That's right, I posted it as an over the top expression of disdain for Sarah Palin haters. I hope you got as much from my edit. I really do...


Meanwhile, only a few minor corrections:
1) I think the Hitler remark is in satire over the number of times that "W" has been called "worse than Hitler" by lefties.
2) You asked for examples from Greg. Well, I think this is just a transcript of his little 30 second or so diatribe he gives on each show. Not really much time for that and he is also talking to people who probably already agree with him.
3) I think this has been gone over a million times or more in this thread. Palin doesn't think evolution should be banned. She doesn't discriminate against gays. She thinks they deserve equal rights. But she doesn't believe in re-writing traditional marriage. You know what's going on with these issues. Don't play dumb.
4) Digs at who? The only dig I see is at elitism and liberalism in general. The comment about GNC is not about bodybuilders, lololol. He specifically talked about wheat germ. That points to health nuts/hippies/etc, not bodybuilders. I'm sure bodybuilders are not more prone to being democrats. :roll: And "The L Word" and chakras were referring to the vogue, hip thing to do (which is another stereotype for liberals). Your shallow assumption is akin to someone talking about Madonna and referring to her Kabbalah habit and then assuming they were ripping on the mystical sect of Judaism instead of the topic at hand - Madonna. Simply ridiculous and unfounded assumptions.

You know, this is the problem. Too many of you folks get offended way too easily. You are the only one who can allow yourself [edit:to be] offended. No one else can do that for you. And you are way too willing to accept that state of being. My comment about "faith" being twisted into "Jesus-ism" earlier and the assumptions about believing in a divine creation period and your post and this whole Palin thing in general is just testimony of this fact.

Everyone just stop being so offense-taking and just relax. Make sure you aren't trying to take someone's meaning in a different manner than intended before responding to them. Both here, and in life. Sheesh!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Usually Dick Morris gives me the willies. But I think he's dead on in that article, especially the last half.

[quote name='camoor']
Oh I don't know - maybe the only thing liberals are intolerant towards is intolerance. [/quote]
Liberals are in love with the idea of tolerance, but they some of the worst when it comes to actually practicing it. They usually just throw the "T" word out to vilify anyone against their agendas.
 
I'm not a Sarah Palin hater but it is a fact that her state has the population of Poughkeepsie, NY and I wouldn't want the mayor of that town to be vice president.

For the all the extremism against Sarah Palin (which I understand because she's a true threat to the Dems) there's the almost illogical worship of her by the right. She's a mother of FIVE! That makes her awesome even though most of us look at parents with five kids with a little amusement and bewilderment. I mean who has five kids these days other than people that refuse to have anything to do with birth control? Oh wait, crazy evangelicals and Catholics.

Why can't we bring up that her daughter might (and that doesn't mean 100%) not be pregnant if she had been told, "Hey, this is a condom. Put it on the guy and not only does it prevent pregnancy but if he cheats on you with a nasty slut with the clap, you probably won't get that too. It's a win win!"

Also, can we get a national discussion on statutory rape? Last time I checked, Palin's daughter is 17 and five months pregnant. Her boyfriend is 18. In most states, this kid would be locked up and branded as a sexual predator for life. I'm not advocating that by any means but we have to stop locking up 18 and 19 years olds for having sex with 16 and 17 year olds.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']Good job, camoor. That's right, I posted it as an over the top expression of disdain for Sarah Palin haters. I hope you got as much from my edit. I really do...[/quote]
OK, I'm hip
[quote name='MorPhiend']Meanwhile, only a few minor corrections:
1) I think the Hitler remark is in satire over the number of times that "W" has been called "worse than Hitler" by lefties.[/quote]
Fair enough.
[quote name='MorPhiend']2) You asked for examples from Greg. Well, I think this is just a transcript of his little 30 second or so diatribe he gives on each show. Not really much time for that and he is also talking to people who probably already agree with him.[/quote]
True, but it was a cheap shot.
[quote name='MorPhiend']3) I think this has been gone over a million times or more in this thread. Palin doesn't think evolution should be banned. She doesn't discriminate against gays. She thinks they deserve equal rights. But she doesn't believe in re-writing traditional marriage. You know what's going on with these issues. Don't play dumb.[/quote]
I should hope she doesn't discriminate against . I think that just shows how far y'all have to go to back her though - "sure she may not want to give gays the right to marry but at least she doesn't spit on them or call them the f word!" Plus there's that whole book banning thing. I'm not playing dumb - I've never been a huge opponent of McCain but the thought of Palin being a heartbeat away from president fills me with dread.
[quote name='MorPhiend']4) Digs at who? The only dig I see is at elitism and liberalism in general. The comment about GNC is not about bodybuilders, lololol. He specifically talked about wheat germ. That points to health nuts/hippies/etc, not bodybuilders. I'm sure bodybuilders are not more prone to being democrats. And "The L Word" and chakras were referring to the vogue, hip thing to do (which is another stereotype for liberals). Your shallow assumption is akin to someone talking about Madonna and referring to her Kabbalah habit and then assuming they were ripping on the mystical sect of Judaism instead of the topic at hand - Madonna. Simply ridiculous and unfounded assumptions.[/quote]
Yeah - I can see that now. I still don't think it's fair though. Who cares about "their" interests, why not come and debate the issues. I think the problem with the right is that they let their religion and social position drive their political idiology, and they assume everyone else does the same. So if someone lives healthy, studies chakras, and watches overrated pay-cable tv series, the right assumes that these scary hippie hobbies are going to result in equally scary hippie public policy.
The truth is that for most liberals religion is religion, entertainment is entertainment, and policy is policy. Sure Barack and other Dems may pay a little deference to their Christian faith, but it's just politics and in the end Dems are more about inclusion then "us vs them"
[quote name='MorPhiend']You know, this is the problem. Too many of you folks get offended way too easily. You are the only one who can allow yourself [edit:to be] offended. No one else can do that for you. And you are way too willing to accept that state of being. My comment about "faith" being twisted into "Jesus-ism" earlier and the assumptions about believing in a divine creation period and your post and this whole Palin thing in general is just testimony of this fact.
Everyone just stop being so offense-taking and just relax. Make sure you aren't trying to take someone's meaning in a different manner than intended before responding to them. Both here, and in life. Sheesh![/quote]
Oh ok - that's the problem? I thought it was spiraling debt, an unpopular war, a housing crisis, global warming,etc etc. Thanks - now that I know it was just getting offended that was the problem, all is well. Drill baby drill!
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Liberals are in love with the idea of tolerance, but they some of the worst when it comes to actually practicing it. They usually just throw the "T" word out to vilify anyone against their agendas.[/quote]

Example please?
 
Aren't Republican politicians just as "elite" as Democratic ones? I mean not many "regular people" have gone to Yale and owned the Texas Rangers.
 
I like how the repubs bragg about being the party of abe lincoln. Like they are anything like him in this day and age.

Nonpartisan all the way baby.

Anyone else can eat a dic.
 
[quote name='Mr. 420']I like how the repubs bragg about being the party of abe lincoln. Like they are anything like him in this day and age.

Nonpartisan all the way baby.

Anyone else can eat a dic.[/quote]

This is the prime example of why we need to overhaul the educational system.
 
Did i just piss off one of the sheeple?
Last time I checked this wasn't english class and I'm not writing up a paper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Mr. 420']Did i just piss off one of the sheeple?[/quote]

Nope. I was just pointing out that you have serious grammar problems that have become normal for anyone graduating in the last couple years. I actually agree with you about Abe Lincoln.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Aren't Republican politicians just as "elite" as Democratic ones? I mean not many "regular people" have gone to Yale and owned the Texas Rangers.[/quote]

It's something I'll never understand. I don't know why you would want a "regular guy" in the white house in the first place, but how you could be deluded into thinking that one of the candidates actually was one is even more puzzling.
 
There are two very, very important facts that every American needs to understand about politics.

1. Dumb people vote on character, not issues.

2. The majority of American voters are dumb.


I mean it. The guy that Joe Sixpack wants to have a beer with will beat out the guy that's best for the job every day of the week. This is how Ike wiped the floor with Stevenson -- 30 second "We Like Ike!" cartoon ads were far, far more effective than Stevenson's verbose addresses of the nation's issues.
 
[quote name='Koggit']There are two very, very important facts that every American needs to understand about politics.

1. Dumb people vote on character, not issues.

2. The majority of American voters are dumb.


I mean it. The guy that Joe Sixpack wants to have a beer with will beat out the guy that's best for the job every day of the week. This is how Ike wiped the floor with Stevenson -- 30 second "We Like Ike!" cartoon ads were far, far more effective than Stevenson's verbose addresses of the nation's issues.[/quote]

Very true. While my brother and I are Obama supporters, whenever we get into a discussion with our father about Mccain/Obama, he only says he like Mccain. Never has any reasoning, doesn't state what his policies are that he agrees with, its just "his gut feeling". Its rather sad.
 
mccainimprovedqh6.jpg


Improved.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
mccainimprovedqh6.jpg


Improved.[/QUOTE]

Haha, not bad.

I think y'all are dismissing character rather too easily. Character does count for something. No, it's not the only factor that should count, but it's part of the package. If it didn't count, you would support a sleazeball who purports to agree with you on all the issues. But you don't, and that's because you don't want a sleazeball in the White House. Of course, the extreme "I like this person so I'm going to vote for him regardless of his position on the issues" position is also dumb.
 
[quote name='Koggit']There are two very, very important facts that every American needs to understand about politics.

1. Dumb people vote on character, not issues.

2. The majority of American voters are dumb.


I mean it. The guy that Joe Sixpack wants to have a beer with will beat out the guy that's best for the job every day of the week. This is how Ike wiped the floor with Stevenson -- 30 second "We Like Ike!" cartoon ads were far, far more effective than Stevenson's verbose addresses of the nation's issues.[/QUOTE]

Hm. I don't know about dismissing character as so important. Should a board of directors hire a CEO based only on a persons credentials and and goals for the company, while dismissing character flaws or allegations of dishonesty and corruption?

Come to think of it, the entire purpose of a job interview is to judge character. Otherwise you'd simply need to fill out a questionare to ensure that your "issues" were what the company was looking for.

I've met plenty of people that told me exactly what I wanted to hear, and had all the qualifications to believe them, even though they rubbed me the wrong way. But because I didn't trust my gut, one of them stole 150k from me. I'm sorry, you can call me dumb, but I'm going to focus on character quite a bit when it comes to trusting people from now on. It's far too easy to get in bed with charletons when all you care about are their "issues".
 
[quote name='camoor']I should hope she doesn't discriminate against . I think that just shows how far y'all have to go to back her though - "sure she may not want to give gays the right to marry but at least she doesn't spit on them or call them the f word!" Plus there's that whole book banning thing. I'm not playing dumb - I've never been a huge opponent of McCain but the thought of Palin being a heartbeat away from president fills me with dread.[/QUOTE]That's not how it is at all. Like I said, she is against re-defining what marriage is. But as far as I can tell, she is all for giving gays equal rights (i.e. letting 'partners" visit them in the hospital).

[quote name='camoor']Yeah - I can see that now. I still don't think it's fair though. Who cares about "their" interests, why not come and debate the issues. I think the problem with the right is that they let their religion and social position drive their political idiology, and they assume everyone else does the same. So if someone lives healthy, studies chakras, and watches overrated pay-cable tv series, the right assumes that these scary hippie hobbies are going to result in equally scary hippie public policy.
The truth is that for most liberals religion is religion, entertainment is entertainment, and policy is policy. Sure Barack and other Dems may pay a little deference to their Christian faith, but it's just politics and in the end Dems are more about inclusion then "us vs them"[/QUOTE]You know, stereotypes are just an easy way to mock. But I know many conservatives who like health food trends and other "in" type of things. I think he was just doing this in order to explain why liberals are afraid of Sarah Palin - because she is the exact opposite of all of this.

[quote name='camoor']Oh ok - that's the problem? I thought it was spiraling debt, an unpopular war, a housing crisis, global warming,etc etc. Thanks - now that I know it was just getting offended that was the problem, all is well. Drill baby drill![/QUOTE]Oh, come on. I didn't mean that. I meant the problem with holding discussions amongst disagreeing parties. You have to admit that far too many people jump to conclusions and get all hot and bothered by other people's comments, when not offense was ever meant. I know there are much bigger problems in the world. But how can we solve them if we can't even communicate effectively?

...

Drill baby, drill!!!
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']That's not how it is at all. Like I said, she is against re-defining what marriage is. But as far as I can tell, she is all for giving gays equal rights (i.e. letting 'partners" visit them in the hospital).[/QUOTE]

So she's against equal rights, and she's for equal rights.

Got it. Duly noted.
 
She's against changing marriage, she's for civil unions. Is there a difference? Yes. Do regular people know? Not a chance.
 
By calling it a civil union, it's different treatment. They tried it during Jim Crow, remember? It was called "Separate but Equal". Brown vs the Board of Education killed it and should be brought up anytime people want to give gays something that's completely different from marriage but will be "treated" as equal.
 
[quote name='depascal22']By calling it a civil union, it's different treatment. They tried it during Jim Crow, remember? It was called "Separate but Equal". Brown vs the Board of Education killed it and should be brought up anytime people want to give gays something that's completely different from marriage but will be "treated" as equal.[/QUOTE]

We already have pages full of this subjects discussions, but I just felt the need to throw out that EVERYONE'S government recognized partnerships should end at civil unions. That's the problem all together. Mariages, should be only recognized and performed by religious institutions (or their equivalent for atheists).
 
[quote name='depascal22']You might have had pages full of discussion but we're discussing Palin's views on it. What do you mean by everyone's government?[/QUOTE]

Fair enough.

I meant that the government's recognition of people's "unions" should end at civil unions, regardless of your gender, your sexual preference, etc. There is no reason for the government to even recognize a difference between marriages and civil unions. Civil Unions are all that should legally matter.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']

I meant that the government's recognition of people's "unions" should end at civil unions, regardless of your gender, your sexual preference, etc. There is no reason for the government to even recognize a difference between marriages and civil unions. Civil Unions are all that should legally matter.[/QUOTE]

i agree 100% with this.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Then I'll fight them.[/quote]

Will you really? Or will you keep voting the same candidates into office because of some vague promises about defense and family values.
 
[quote name='camoor']Will you really? Or will you keep voting the same candidates into office because of some vague promises about defense and family values.[/QUOTE]

I have actually never voted for a candidate. I've only ever voted against one. And I'm tired of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top