.the Republican National Convention thread.

[StarzAbove]

I'm so glad this is over with

[random]

Originally posted by angelofdeath

cmon poop... do you base your liberalness on the accuracies of Michael Moore?

 

what does this even mean??

 

we all know there is as much truth in what i posted as there is in the truth you believe.

 

speak for yourself

 

if you ask me both choices are twits.

 

but you really think this country would be better off with bush for another 4 years? do you think at all about the millions of people who are worse off than you are, and how the bush administration's policies have affected and will affect them?

 

Bush's ruinous economic plans

By Robert Kuttner | September 1, 2004

 

WE WILL shortly hear from the president himself, but the outlines of his domestic program for a second term are already all too clear. Take five key areas of economic policy -- health, Social Security, energy, taxes, and the deficit.

 

All five have this in common: In each case the administration program doesn't really address the underlying problem. Rather, the purpose is either to help an industry ally, stir up the party base, or advance an ideological goal (or all three).

 

Health Coverage. Health insurance premiums have risen by more than one-third since Bush took office, leaving more and more people uninsured or underinsured. Families USA calculates from Census Bureau data that one nonelderly American in three was without health insurance at some point from 2002 to 2003. Meanwhile, employers and insurers are moderating their own costs by increasing copays and deductibles paid by consumers.

 

The president's proposed health program, a massive expansion of so-called health savings accounts, doesn't address the twin problem of dwindling coverage and rising costs. It simply accelerates the shift of those costs onto consumers and gives affluent people one more tax break. Health savings accounts are useful mainly for the healthy and the wealthy because they don't buy coverage that is both comprehensive and affordable.

 

Social Security. The Bush plan to privatize Social Security, in whole or in part, is back. But there is no way that privatizing the system will shore up its finances. Rather, it will do just the opposite by diverting payroll tax revenue needed for Social Security payouts into new private accounts. To keep the promise of Social Security intact, Bush would need either massive new borrowing or massive tax hikes. But the more likely result is reductions in benefits. Of course, these cuts, like the damage from his deficits, would hit long after Bush left office.

 

Energy. There's a growing consensus among experts that the most recent wave of oil price hikes is not mainly the result of market manipulation, refining bottlenecks, or the Iraq occupation but the harbinger of the long-predicted depletion of the world's extractable oil reserves. With the huge populations of China, India, and other emergent economies joining the global consumer society, demand is simply outstripping supply.

 

Bush's program is essentially deeper and wider drilling, lubricated by friendly tax and environmental policies. His support for conservation or alternative energy sources is token at best. Last week three Bush Cabinet secretaries, just in time for the Republican National Convention, belatedly conceded that science has proven the reality of global climate change caused by carbon emissions. Bush said he was unaware of the report.

 

Taxes. The tax program for a second Bush term will be more of the same. One goal will be to make the tax cuts of 2001 to 2004 permanent. A new twist will be a shift to consumption taxes -- either a value-added tax, a national sales tax, or new tax breaks for money saved rather than spent. The result will be an overall reduction of taxes paid by those wealthy enough to save substantially and a shift onto workaday voters who spend most of what they earn. This will be advertised as a program to create jobs and reward entrepreneurship, but it sure didn't work in Bush's first term -- the only presidency since Hoover with fewer payroll jobs at the end than the beginning.

 

The deficit. Hardly anyone, Republican or Democrat, truly believes that the Bush tax-and-spending program will do anything other than make the deficit problem worse. The Congressional Budget Office, whose director is appointed by congressional Republicans, projects endless deficits in excess of $400 billion a year. If Bush succeeds in making recent tax cuts permanent and adding new ones, the deficits will be even more serious. With military outlay rising, the administration's only game plan is to backload the effect of tax cuts until after this president leaves office and cut domestic spending even further.

 

As the latest Census report makes clear, the typical American is economically worse off than in 2001. The GOP game plan is to keep voters' attention riveted on the memory of 9/11 and the threat of terrorism. Otherwise John Kerry will eat Bush's lunch on the pocketbook issues.

 

It's a remarkable commentary on the ability of the administration to wave the flag and change the subject that Bush isn't held more accountable for the huge gap between his policies and their results. As the president himself so memorably attempted to say, "Fool me once, shame on you . . ."

 

Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect.

[KaBar2]

Mr. Kerry is absolutely NOT pro-gun

 

His votes against firearms were just exactly that---an attempt to further the cause of disarming the American people.

 

There is NO SUCH THING as "cop-killer" bullets. Teflon coated bullets were designed to produce less wear-and-tear on the inside of a magnum pistol barrel, not to penetrate body armor. Besides, very few bullet-resistant vests can turn any sort of magnum round, and virtually none of the LE vests (designed to be worn under a police uniform) can turn any center-fire rifle bullet. Even a pipsqueak poodle-shooter round like the 5.56mm (M16A2, M4) plows right on through everything except a heavy, thick, reinforced-with-ceramic-assault-plates military assault vest. NO vest can stop a main battle rifle round like 7.62mm NATO, 8mm Mauser, 7.62x54R, .30-'06, 7.5mm French and so on, and not even a truck or an armored personnel carrier can stop a heavy machinegun round like the .50 M2HB or the 12.7mm DshK.

 

Body armor is only effective against very underpowered pistol cartridges such as the .22LR, .32, .38 S&W, .38 Special or the 9mm. They are somewhat effective against larger calibers such as the .45 ACP, .44 Special, .357 Mag, but even a weak rifle round like the .30 US Carbine will penetrate LE vests.

 

The idea behind the "cop-killer" bullet was to plant the idea that certain ammunition, if it was capable of penetrating police officer's body armor, was "designed to kill cops." WHAT A LOAD OF BULLSHIT. If they could get society to believe that a Teflon coated 9mm was a "cop-killer bullet" then what about Grandpa's .30-30 deer rifle, which will penetrate every bullet-resistant vest ever produced? DON'T LISTEN TO THESE LIBERAL FASCISTS--THEY ARE TRYING TO DISARM YOU.

 

The problem isn't "cop-killer bullets." The problem is criminals who have absolutely no respect for themselves and the rest of society, who think that they are entitled to victimize others without consequences, and who are not restrained in the slightest by the Law. Equally guilty are liberals who want to treat these murderers with kid gloves.

 

It is very easy to avoid prison and capital punishment. Simply choose to live your life within the confines of common decency and the law. Presto! No more police problems.

[random]

Re: Mr. Kerry is absolutely NOT pro-gun

 

Originally posted by KaBar2

LIBERAL FASCISTS

 

fas·cism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)

n.

often Fascism

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

 

lib·er·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lbr-l, lbrl)

adj.

 

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

 

 

Lib"er*al, n. One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters; an opponent of the established systems; a reformer; in English politics, a member of the Liberal party, so called. Cf. Whig.

 

 

adj 1: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" [syn: broad, large-minded, tolerant] 2: having political or social views favoring reform and progress 3: tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition [ant: conservative] 4: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather" [syn: big, bighearted, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, handsome, giving, openhanded] 5: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem" [syn: free, loose] n 1: a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties [syn: progressive] [ant: conservative] 2: a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

 

:confused: :confused: :rolleyes:

[Poop Man Bob]

Originally posted by angelofdeath cmon poop... do you base your liberalness on the accuracies of Michael Moore?

 

You lost any credibility you had previously. Great argument. Don't respond to anything I actually said, just mention a divisive public figure and claim I'm using him as a source.

[Nekro]

I have absolutely nothing against people owning guns. If you want to own a gun, that's cool with me. I just sort of get pissed when gun owners start shooting people. Then you don't have the right to own a gun anymore.

 

Here's my view on social problems: It is the primary job of parents, not government, to keep their kids in school, off drugs, and on the track to college. The government cannot and should not attempt do these things for parents, however it can help out in certain ways.

[Weapon X]

Originally posted by villain

I believe the dichotomy is more emphatic in goverment with those who support environmental programs and those who don't. When I was listening to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on NPR the other day he was talking about how Bush has put into power corporate lobbyists of all stripes into positions where government typically would protect our lands and resources. Not so now. He has outlined on his website www.nrdc.org (Natural Resource Defense Council) over 400 pieces of legislation that Bush has enacted that weaken environmental laws and give corporations more power. He has in fact rolled back 30 years worth of environmental protection legislation. Also one of the major contributors to Bush in 2000 were some 1500 illegal coal burning power plants... which are now of course no longer illegal even though they are the most damaging type of power plants to the environment. Just look at what it's doing to china. Protecting the environment should be a bipartisan issue. Mr. Kennedy is worried that it's being stigmatized as solely the province of the democratic party.

 

 

Go to the Georgebush.com site. From there, go to the photo album. Then, check the pics of environment (under ‘agenda’). You will find that the only pictures in there are of ‘Dubya’ and Gayle Norton, Secretary of the Interior, hanging out.

 

You will notice no activity in national parks or protected wildlife areas. The greater emphasis is on little recreational areas.

 

I find it hard to believe that you people have a hard time bringing up Bush’s environmental record.

 

The devastating effects on the environment through war not withstanding, I couldn’t give a fuck about a bunch of towel heads and a bunch of football worshipping ignoramuses. I don't give a shit about your gun control and your religion and state issues. FUCK IT ALL!

 

As a Canadian, I am very worried about my own natural resources. The Prudhoe Bay oilfields in the northern part of Alaska pump out way more pollution than most big cities in North America. Each year, there is an average of 400 spills of crude oil, diesel fuel, ethylene glycol and other hazardous substances.

 

That’s in Prudhoe Bay, which has been doing well in pumping out oil. 30 miles to the east of it’s most eastern pipeline, there is a 1.5 million acre plain that is a crucial part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). It’s the birthing grounds for the Porcupine Caribou herd, as well as the denning spot for the Beaufort Sea Polar Bear population. Also, it’s nesting grounds for approximately 150 species of birds.

 

George Bush’s people have made claims that there is no way that they would harm any of these animals if they were to drill (drill they will, most certainly). Well, Jimmy Carter, that tree hugging, weed smoking, star worshipping, burlap wearing, living on the streets, bum hippie, says otherwise, as do everyone else with a brain.

 

Bush has made drilling ANWR a huge priority. He says that the electricity crisis in California is making this a necessity. But less than 1% of California’s electrical power is generated by oil. Also, the decimation of the wildlife in ANWR would barely make a difference in the US’s dependence on foreign oil.

 

From what I understand, Republicans in the New England states have issues with this, as they are down for protecting the environment. I believe that they may be the only reason why this hasn’t gone down yet.

 

Dick Cheney has sensed that John Kerry’s (and, polls say the majority of Americans) opposition may thwart their plans to drill there, so they have now planned to drill in the Rockies. “It doesn’t matter to me where the gas comes from, in the long run, just so long as we get gas moving into the country,” says George Bush.

 

Congress recognized the uncertainty of the refuge’s oil supplies twenty-one years ago and decided not to extend wilderness protection to the coastal plain. Instead, Congress ordered studies of the plain’s oil potential and wildlife.

 

Since then, there have been a number of tests showing more uncertainty, this time regarding just how much oil is under Prudhoe Bay’s surrounding areas, protected or not. The Republicans and Tony Knowles, Alaska’s governor (D), have decided that only the tests that showed the possibility of there being a HUGE amount of oil are the only tests that matter.

 

This is where I get pissed…

 

The Republicans and the oil lobby groups have been publishing pictures, among other things, where you see a number of Porcupine Caribou grazing with oil derricks in the background. The caption will read something like “Do the Caribou Even Care?”

 

They do. There have been numbers of tests taken on these animals, and it shows that the pregnant caribou have been undergoing high stress levels, and that the birth rate among females near the Prudoe Bay oil fields has been declining big time. The calf survival rates between those who are reared near the oil fields, and those that aren’t are significantly different.

 

Oil lobbyists will say that the herd’s numbers have jumped since 1968, which is true. But that’s only because of the mild winters they have been facing. All caribou in the north have grown in population. This will not last long.

 

 

Fuck it, I’m tired of typing, and this is nothing. Seriously, the States have been fucking around for too long, and Bush is just one bad extreme. If voting Kerry helps, then do it.

 

What the hell, though. How many of you Americans even give a shit about any animals except that fat golden retriever in the living room downstairs? Do they teach you about the delicate nature of the various ecosystems in your schools? I doubt it. Not from what I’ve seen.

 

 

You people can talk all you want about the grim certainty of the future world war, or some bullshit War on Terror (as if that’s been going real well). Those of you who read books on the fucked up state of our planet know that we are already at war with ourselves, and our planet. And we are losing – big time. Think about that just a little when you’re at the voting booth. Maybe Al Gore can headlock Kerry into submission, and your kids can have a good time playing in the playgrounds without risk of disease.

[Weapon X]

Re: Mr. Kerry is absolutely NOT pro-gun

 

Originally posted by KaBar2

The problem is criminals who have absolutely no respect for themselves and the rest of society, who think that they are entitled to victimize others without consequences, and who are not restrained in the slightest by the Law.

 

Oh, you're talking about your country. Particularly the government, right?

[ODS-1]

The Daily Show had the best coverage ever. Jon Stewart keeps getting more and more radical as time goes on.

[ODS-1]

http://www.infoshop.org/newspics/rnc2004/r980366098.jpg'>

[Poop Man Bob]

We're hitting back.

 

TexansForTruth.com: Was George Bush AWOL In Alabama?

[Æ°]

But then he added, "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

[Guest KING BLING]

I used to care about politics, and I guess in some moods that comes out even here...but it is pretty much the most frustrating and tedious thing on earth...

 

This isn't directly aimed at you Kabar, but if it angers you and anyone else when "liberals" use terms like "cop-killer"...but how about

 

"pro-lifers" supporting the death penalty

 

"no child left behind" as more and more grown poor and schools are under funded while being pressured by 'fuzzy math' expectations

 

"weapons of mass destruction" If they existed, we helped put them there

 

"death tax" another tax on the wealthy to be transferred into middle America or the defecit, but its called "death" so it must be bad

 

"welfare reform" draconian and arbitrary policies that offer no fish, do nothing to teach a man to fish...and essentially say 'eat the worms'

 

and so many other buzz words. Its double speak, it's all that way...thats why our new forest policy entails cutting down portions of the forest to preserve them...like the past few million years or so didn't work...and we call it the "Healthy Forest Initiative"

 

...but alas, wouldn't want such a vital subject as one particular type of bullet to get in the way of what is otherwise an honest world...

[Nekro]

Ben Barnes is going to lay the smackdown on bush's claim to honorable national guard service.

[Weapon X]

Originally posted by KING BLING

I used to care about politics, and I guess in some moods that comes out even here...but it is pretty much the most frustrating and tedious thing on earth...

 

This isn't directly aimed at you Kabar, but if it angers you and anyone else when "liberals" use terms like "cop-killer"...but how about

 

"pro-lifers" supporting the death penalty

 

"no child left behind" as more and more grown poor and schools are under funded while being pressured by 'fuzzy math' expectations

 

"weapons of mass destruction" If they existed, we helped put them there

 

"death tax" another tax on the wealthy to be transferred into middle America or the defecit, but its called "death" so it must be bad

 

"welfare reform" draconian and arbitrary policies that offer no fish, do nothing to teach a man to fish...and essentially say 'eat the worms'

 

and so many other buzz words. Its double speak, it's all that way...thats why our new forest policy entails cutting down portions of the forest to preserve them...like the past few million years or so didn't work...and we call it the "Healthy Forest Initiative"

 

...but alas, wouldn't want such a vital subject as one particular type of bullet to get in the way of what is otherwise an honest world...

 

haha, dude, that's sick!

[POIESIS]

krugman

 

A Mythic Reality

By PAUL KRUGMAN

 

Published: September 7, 2004

 

The best book I've read about America after 9/11 isn't about either America or 9/11. It's "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning," an essay on the psychology of war by Chris Hedges, a veteran war correspondent. Better than any poll analysis or focus group, it explains why President Bush, despite policy failures at home and abroad, is ahead in the polls.

 

War, Mr. Hedges says, plays to some fundamental urges. "Lurking beneath the surface of every society, including ours," he says, "is the passionate yearning for a nationalist cause that exalts us, the kind that war alone is able to deliver." When war psychology takes hold, the public believes, temporarily, in a "mythic reality" in which our nation is purely good, our enemies are purely evil, and anyone who isn't our ally is our enemy.

 

This state of mind works greatly to the benefit of those in power.

 

One striking part of the book describes Argentina's reaction to the 1982 Falklands war. Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri, the leader of the country's military junta, cynically launched that war to distract the public from the failure of his economic policies. It worked: "The junta, which had been on the verge of collapse" just before the war, "instantly became the saviors of the country."

 

The point is that once war psychology takes hold, the public desperately wants to believe in its leadership, and ascribes heroic qualities to even the least deserving ruler. National adulation for the junta ended only after a humiliating military defeat.

 

George W. Bush isn't General Galtieri: America really was attacked on 9/11, and any president would have followed up with a counterstrike against the Taliban. Yet the Bush administration, like the Argentine junta, derived enormous political benefit from the impulse of a nation at war to rally around its leader.

 

Another president might have refrained from exploiting that surge of support for partisan gain; Mr. Bush didn't.

 

And his administration has sought to perpetuate the war psychology that makes such exploitation possible.

 

Step by step, the fight against Al Qaeda became a universal "war on terror," then a confrontation with the "axis of evil," then a war against all evil everywhere. Nobody knows where it all ends.

 

What is clear is that whenever political debate turns to Mr. Bush's actual record in office, his popularity sinks. Only by doing whatever it takes to change the subject to the war on terror - not to what he's actually doing about terrorist threats, but to his "leadership," whatever that means - can he get a bump in the polls.

 

Last week's convention made it clear that Mr. Bush intends to use what's left of his heroic image to win the election, and early polls suggest that the strategy may be working. What can John Kerry do?

 

Campaigning exclusively on domestic issues won't work. Mr. Bush must be held to account for his dismal record on jobs, health care and the environment. But as Mr. Hedges writes, when war psychology makes a public yearn to believe in its leaders, "there is little that logic or fact or truth can do to alter the experience."

 

To win, the Kerry campaign has to convince a significant number of voters that the self-proclaimed "war president" isn't an effective war leader - he only plays one on TV.

 

This charge has the virtue of being true. It's hard to find a nonpartisan national security analyst with a good word for the Bush administration's foreign policy. Iraq, in particular, is a slow-motion disaster brought on by wishful thinking, cronyism and epic incompetence.

 

If I were running the Kerry campaign, I'd remind people frequently about Mr. Bush's flight-suit photo-op, when he declared the end of major combat. In fact, the war goes on unabated. News coverage of Iraq dropped off sharply after the supposed transfer of sovereignty on June 28, but as many American soldiers have died since the transfer as in the original invasion.

 

And I'd point out that while Mr. Bush spared no effort preparing for his carrier landing - he even received underwater survival training in the White House pool - he didn't prepare for things that actually mattered, like securing and rebuilding Iraq after Baghdad fell.

 

Will it work? I don't know. But to win, Mr. Kerry must try to puncture the myth that Mr. Bush's handlers have so assiduously created.

 

ps-i read hedges book just before the war broke out..highly recommended.

[POIESIS]

anybody else loving the irony of bush calling

kerry a flipflopper? what a whopper....

[pixie]

poiesis, can i just say you rock

[random]

Originally posted by POIESIS

anybody else loving the irony of bush calling

kerry a flipflopper? what a whopper....

 

yeah it's the strategy of saying something false so many times people start to believe it. pure bullshit.

[Weapon X]

The Democrats are a bunch of pussies, and I don't believe that they want to win. They don't have the hunger. That article does nothing to explain to me why they won't attack Bush. Seriously, it's like they're being paid to lose.

[random]

bump

[Guest]

Originally posted by Weapon X

The Democrats are a bunch of pussies, and I don't believe that they want to win.

 

I know it's a bad plan,

but I think a lot of the democratic camp

is just sitting and waiting for 2008 when they

can run Hillary Clinton against whatever schmoe

the rebublicans sit on the fence after Bush has reached his term limit.