Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Coolridr on September 01, 2004, 10:03:12 PM
-
Just saw his speech at the RNC...
Loved when he was listing all the military stuff Kerry voted against the asked...
"AS commander in Chief what does he plan to arm our troops with? SPITBALLS?"
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Glad he's on the GOP's side for this election.
-
:D
-
He is a flake.
-
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Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."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.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
He is a flake.
Why 'cause he has the balls cross party lines for his beliefs and doesn't agree with you?
-
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?
This is what I was trying to quote before. Good stuff:aok
-
No, because he is a flake.
-
The way he just put Chris Matthews in his place just now friggn rocks! Matthews, tried his usual ask a leading question akin to "do you still beat your wife?" with his typical follow up of talking over the answer. Matthews shock at the way Zell jumped all over him like he was ready to kick his bellybutton was the best tv Ive seen all week, mabey even all month.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
No, because he is a flake.
and if it were Jim Jeffords he'd be a hero. typical politics
-
No politics involved, I am a hardcore Bushie, but Zell is a flake, period.
-
It was a very angry speech. I enjoyed watching it because I don't like Kerry, but I thought it was more fitting for this BBS than national TV.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
It was a very angry speech. I enjoyed watching it, but I thought it was more fitting for this BBS than national TV.
I really think he apeals to people of good old fassion values and American patriotism.
Too many people (myself included) are sick and tired of hearing how bad America is.
I thaught it was a great speech and added a little more balence to the convention.
-
None of these pukes from either party have any place complaining about partisan politics.
-
Lizking, the phrase you are looking for is:"That boy ain't right."
-
Originally posted by Coolridr
Just saw his speech at the RNC...
Loved when he was listing all the military stuff Kerry voted against the asked...
"AS commander in Chief what does he plan to arm our troops with? SPITBALLS?"
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Glad he's on the GOP's side for this election.
Im glad he is on your side also. I thought that he was going to put on his Klan robes at any minute.
If you say a lie enough times the SHEEP will believe it.
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/lying_in_politics_/2004/03/hagel_defends_kerry_on_defense.php
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209 - kerry and defen
-
Originally posted by Silat
Im glad he is on your side also. I thought that he was going to put on his Klan robes at any minute.
If you say a lie enough times the SHEEP will believe it.
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/lying_in_politics_/2004/03/hagel_defends_kerry_on_defense.php
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209 - kerry and defen
Have some proof to back up the inuendo? Or does the southern accent automatically mean he is a possible clansman?
IKON
-
nothing - but nice smear...can't attack the message so attack the messenger
"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," he said. "How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside."
-
The only KKK member in the Senate is Kerry's close friend Democrat Robert Byrd...
-
But Grun, we don't want to talk about Byrd.
We'd rather slur Miller, someone who as far as has been shown has never been associated with the Klan than talk about Byrd who clearly DID wear the robes of the Klan.
We want to talk about Trent Lott getting run out of the majority leadership because he said:
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
That was absolutely unforgiveable. Lott should have taken a page from Byrd's playbook and stuck to saying things like:
On March 4, 2001, an interview with FOX News Sunday host Tony Snow was aired. In the interview Byrd was asked about race relations: "They are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime," Byrd said.
"I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that."
Then Byrd warned: "There are white ******s. I've seen a lot of white ******s in my time; I'm going to use that word."
[/quote]
-
Yea Toad, but you forget that liberals simply cant be seen as racist, no matter what they do..
Even things like this, a sign at a San Francisco anti-war, anti-bush, anti-usa, anti-imperilaism, anti-racism, anti-on and on protest..
(http://protestwarrior.com/gallery/lefties/15.jpg)
Amazing huh...
-
zell is a little off but... who among us isn't? The left really gets ticked when they lose members to the republicans ...
I suppose republicans would be ticked if they lost members to the lefties but.... they seldom if ever do. people grow away from the left not into it.
lazs
-
Zell. (http://members.roadfly.org/dls/Zellmiller.jpg)
-
That's it. The guy has Yellow Labs.
He must be a good guy. What other proof would you need?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
and if it were Jim Jeffords he'd be a hero. typical politics
...and where is Jeffords today?
-
Saw some AKC yellows (white-yellow actually) last weekend for $550.
I was sorely tempted.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Im glad he is on your side also. I thought that he was going to put on his Klan robes at any minute.
Wow! Was Robert Byrd there too...? That's a lot of Democrats coming over to the GOP.
-
MT, go English lineage if you do. You won't regret it...except right when you write out the check. ;)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yea Toad, but you forget that liberals simply cant be seen as racist, no matter what they do..
Even things like this, a sign at a San Francisco anti-war, anti-bush, anti-usa, anti-imperilaism, anti-racism, anti-on and on protest..
...
The SF anti-war protests were assinine. At the time, SF was the fastest SHRINKING city in the US and people were desperate to keep their jobs. So you have these morons blocking traffic in the financial district. And on a couple occasions they dragged people who were trying to get to work from their cars and beat the crap out of them. So much for non-violence, huh?
They also said they planned to jump the wire at one of the air stations in the area - yeah, good luck. And there were some militant protestors with Molotov cocktails floating around too.
Funny thing was, hardly anyone protesting seemed to actually know someone who they were "trying to save" that was on station in Iraq.
All that being said, Grun, your stance is meaningless. What a couple of militant whackos put on a plackard does NOT say a damn thing about how everyone else on that side of the fence feels. I really object to the kind of thinking that says "If one of this group thinks this way, well, they must ALL be this way."
That, my friend, is prejudice. Pre-judgement. Get it? Got it? Good.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
All that being said, Grun, your stance is meaningless. What a couple of militant whackos put on a plackard does NOT say a damn thing about how everyone else on that side of the fence feels. I really object to the kind of thinking that says "If one of this group thinks this way, well, they must ALL be this way."
That, my friend, is prejudice. Pre-judgement. Get it? Got it? Good.
Thats not his argument.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Im glad he is on your side also. I thought that he was going to put on his Klan robes at any minute.
If you say a lie enough times the SHEEP will believe it.
http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/lying_in_politics_/2004/03/hagel_defends_kerry_on_defense.php
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209 - kerry and defen
Actually, Silat, I believe you've got Zell mixed up with another Democrat, Senator "KKK" Byrd.
My favorite line from Zell's speach was, "John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security."
That was friggin priceless.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Actually, Silat, I believe you've got Zell mixed up with another Democrat, Senator "KKK" Byrd.
My favorite line from Zell's speach was, "John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security."
That was friggin priceless.
U.N.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Im glad he is on your side also. I thought that he was going to put on his Klan robes at any minute.
/B]
You must be confuseing him with Sen. Robert Byrd D virgina, former KKK.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
nothing - but nice smear...can't attack the message so attack the messenger
"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," he said. "How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside."
Talk about avoiding the facts. I gave you the links proving that the Bush Campaign is spreading lies about Kerry's voting record .
-
Originally posted by JBA
You must be confuseing him with Sen. Robert Byrd D virgina, former KKK.
Isnt this the same Zell Miller who was chief
of staff for the unrepentant racist Lester Maddox?
-
Lazs,
Why would I, as a Liberal, care if he switched parties? It doesn't bother me a bit and it is his right to do so. Self determination and all that. If his voters like it, they can keep voting him in and if they don't they can vote him out. From what I've read he likely has no worries there.
I feel the same about Jeffords. I don't understand all the hoopla about switchers being either scum or heros depending on who is doing the talking.
-
Did I miss the part where Senator Byrd delivered the keynote address for the Democratic National Convention?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Heard he was going to until he found out he couldn't wear his Klan robes.
Gee, this stuff is so easy. I see why so many resort to it.
-
Salon.com
....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, he 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 that 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 meltdown 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 important, Matthews insisted the show would get great ratings because everybody would be waiting to see if Miller was going to "beat me up."
.....
-- Eric Boehlert
[22:35 PDT, Sept. 1, 2004]
-
Funny how the left-controlled mainstream media jumps on Miller saying that was an "angry" speech and it hurts the Republicans, but they never mention how angry MIchael Moore comes off as and tout him as a hero of the Democratic party.
-
Micheal Moore? What are you talking about?
The Hardball video is priceless, a full-on meltdown.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/)
-
Bush in an electoral landslide. All you left wing(same as being so stupid as to be beyond saving) whackos better get used to the idea. For at least four more years, the U.S. will remain a free nation. Maybe in another 4 years you insane whackos can give our freedom to the U.N., but not this time around.
-
Sort of like Gore's "He betrayed this country!" melt-down?
-
Originally posted by Silat
Talk about avoiding the facts. I gave you the links proving that the Bush Campaign is spreading lies about Kerry's voting record .
Hypocrite. When Bush is being compaired to Hitler, and generally being subject to lies and half-truths about him, it just independent groups. When independent groups go after Kerry its the Bush campaign.
By the way bringing the KKK into the discussion is a red herring and totally inappropriate. As a matter of fact it is just a low life thing to do, and quite frankly shows who is a flake. I dont care if the discussion was about comments made by a grand wizard of the kkk on a completely unrelated topic to kkk intrests. It would not automatically invalidate the comments. As far as Im concerned the first opposition responders calling him a hatefull bigot just show what an prettythang you people are.
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
Salon.com
....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."
Just shows what kind of liers are in the media and how disappointing it is that all you sheep out there believe if its in print or on the news that it must be true.
I watched it live as my first post indicated. He did not "repeatedly challenging the MSNBC host to a duel ". He said I wish this were the old days when you could challenge someone to a duel. Talk about parsing words. Matthews kept asking questions and then talking over top of Miller when he tried to answer. He told him if he was going to ask him questions to shut up and let him answer.
Who is the totally tubular liar here? Making comments that hint that Matthews treatment of a sitting US Senator was disrespectful enough that in past US history Matthews actions could have led to a duel. Is not the same as this guy painting the picture that this crazy old man was litterally challenging him to a duel.
-
(http://my.core.com/~oldgrendel/spitball.gif)
-
Originally posted by Murdr
... As far as Im concerned the first opposition responders calling him a hatefull bigot just show what an prettythang you people are.
"You people"????
What demographic does this include?
-
Mabey my composition skills are not the best, but I think the paragraph as a whole states clearly enough who "you people" are.
-
Oh, hell I got it wrong. He didnt even tell him to shut up. He asked him "Well no. Are you going to shut up when you ask me? Are you going to give me a chance to answer?"
Read that article, then watch the actual interview (http://tinyurl.com/42lsd) it is very telling about the poor service the "press" is providing the american people.
Oh, and by the way my opinion is that Matthews had that comming for a long time. The lady Zell refered to was a woman that was invited on Hardball to talk about her book. They asked her to sit on the discussion panel before here book segment came up. Being the great reporter Matthews wanted to discuss the swift boat accusations topic, but hadnt even read their book. She had read it. When encouraged to talk abou the accusations in the book, Matthews tried to put words in he mouth, and would not shut up long enough to let her explain that Chris had it wrong. He then kicked her off the show at the end of the segment, canceling her discussion about her book, which is why she was there in the first place. Zell told Imus that because of that he decided if Matthews ever tried to treat him that way, he wouldnt let it go unanswered.
-
His speech was all bull**** and massive exagerations. The guy is just trying to shill his book. He'll do and say anything to get the publicity.
Oh dammit.
I just realised I used a frequent neo-con slander tactic from these very boards....
-
"That's it. The guy has Yellow Labs. He must be a good guy...."
Heh. You don't think he'd be caught alive with black labs do you?
(you're right. it is too easy. i feel dirty....)
-
Originally posted by Westy
His speach was all bull**** and massive exagerations. The guy is just trying to shill his book. He'll do and say anything to get the publicity.
One issue you cant sidestep is the fact that Kerry now wants us to believe that he will act decisivly when the right conditions are met. He claims he would have gone into Iraq, but he would have built a better cohalition than Bush did. Yet the largest cohalition in history was formed for the gulf war and he voted aginst it.
Oh, and you mean liberal slander tactics from this board. The first thing they did is compair Miller to a speaker at a KKK rally.
-
" mean liberal slander tactics from this board."
lol. Make the bad man go away....
The conservatives and neo-cons on this board have been FAR worse in the last two years by a magnitude of ten. All I can say is aint no sympathy here.
FYI. I can't stand Kerry and I do not plan on voting for him. However theres is no way in hell I can vote for the team of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield and retain a clean concious.
-
Well I will have to take your word for it westly since I dont frequent the oclub often. I can only comment on what I see, which in this thread (as I explained earlier) is pretty ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by Westy
I can't stand Kerry and I do not plan on voting for him....I can vote for the team of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield and retain a clean concious.
LOOK ^^^ a Michael Moore "quote" LOL
(http://www.georgewbush.com/images/downloads/GWB_logo_100.gif)
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Hypocrite. When Bush is being compaired to Hitler, and generally being subject to lies and half-truths about him, it just independent groups. When independent groups go after Kerry its the Bush campaign.
By the way bringing the KKK into the discussion is a red herring and totally inappropriate. As a matter of fact it is just a low life thing to do, and quite frankly shows who is a flake. I dont care if the discussion was about comments made by a grand wizard of the kkk on a completely unrelated topic to kkk intrests. It would not automatically invalidate the comments. As far as Im concerned the first opposition responders calling him a hatefull bigot just show what an prettythang you people are.
Pretty personal comments Murdr. And I havent called you an a** or a flake.I didnt call Bush Hitler. But Zell represents an old south. He was chief of staff for Lester Maddox. I dont think Im very far off base about him.
How that makes me a hypocrite I dont understand. THere is nothing even remotely lowlife about telling it how I see it based on history about him.
.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Pretty personal comments Murdr. And I havent called you an a** or a flake.I didnt call Bush Hitler. But Zell represents an old south. He was chief of staff for Lester Maddox. I dont think Im very far off base about him.
How that makes me a hypocrite I dont understand. THere is nothing even remotely lowlife about telling it how I see it based on history about him.
.
I thought you were talking about Sen. Byrd.
-
Silat,
When Miller delivered the keynote address on behalf of Bill Clinton in 1992 was he chief of staff for Lester Maddox? Or does that only count now. I for one, don't remember a thing being said about it then. Funny how that works ain't it.
-
I have little humor, tollerence, or respect for this old cheap tactic of crying bigot whenever a conservative speaks out.
Anyone can google a transcript of Zells speach, and anyone can see there is absolutely nothing at all relating to race in that speech. This thread was about Zells performance as the key note speaker.
There is no call for throwing Sen Miller in with the KKK in the related discussion. Criticizing what he said, why he said it, the validity of his statments, thats cool. So why bring up the KKK? He wasnt a Robert Byrd or a David Duke. Even if he was, what does that have to do with what he said in his speech? Absolutely nothing. What does that have to do with the validity of his claims? Absolutely nothing. I wonder what the next tact will be when that generation that lived through the civil rights changes eventually die off. Mabey at one time I wouldnt bat an eye when I seen stuff like this. That was before I seen a man trying to say some nice things to a 100 year old be turned into a circus.
What is the point of judging a persons life in an extict social standard based on the standards of today? My dad used to break yard stick on my arse, until he swithed to the belt. Try and do something like that in Wal-Mart today, and see how long it takes for the men in blue to have a conversation with you. Does that make him a child abuser today? Not to me. Unless you want to bring some recent examples of what a bigot Zell is today then the whole deal is irrelevent. Even if you did what is your point? Bush is the bigots canidate?
You poped in here with links later stating they prove the bush campaign is spreading lies about kerry. The hypocritical part is lumping Bush supporters in with the Bush campaign, while turning a blind eye to all the bs that anti-Bush/Kerry suppoters have pumped out for the last year, but not giving them the equivelent "Kerry campaign" blanket. If I miss read that, and you view both the same way, Id be happy to retract the hypocritical statment since it is at least consistant.
Also, I did not go after an individual with my earlier comment, I threw out a blanket (albeit it only fell on 2 people). I cant explian the basis for my expressed view any more clearly than I already have. If that makes me a jerk, that is fine with me. Take it however you wish.
-
Originally posted by Gyro/T69
Silat,
When Miller delivered the keynote address on behalf of Bill Clinton in 1992 was he chief of staff for Lester Maddox? Or does that only count now. I for one, don't remember a thing being said about it then. Funny how that works ain't it.
Doesnt work that way. It only counts now. Its ok to be a Democrat and have either a hint of, or even blatent racism in you past. Its ok to be a (D) US senator and a former KKK official. Its ok to be a (D) US senator and make jokes about people from India. Its ok to be a (D) US congressperson, and refer to a comittee lead by a hispanic you met with as a "bunch of white guys". I guess if you do enough to become a persona no grata Democrat though, that privilage gets revoked though.
-
Thought it a great speech, even if he did sound a bit like Jimmy Carter. ;)
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Doesnt work that way. It only counts now. Its ok to be a Democrat and have either a hint of, or even blatent racism in you past. Its ok to be a (D) US senator and a former KKK official. Its ok to be a (D) US senator and make jokes about people from India. Its ok to be a (D) US congressperson, and refer to a comittee lead by a hispanic you met with as a "bunch of white guys". I guess if you do enough to become a persona no grata Democrat though, that privilage gets revoked though.
First of all Im not a demo and 2nd Ill call it as the facts show it about anyone. Unfortunately you cant seem to do the same.
-
Originally posted by Silat
First of all Im not a demo and 2nd Ill call it as the facts show it about anyone. Unfortunately you cant seem to do the same.
That was sarcasm you quoted, and it wasnt even directed toward you. I am still waiting on how the whole kkk thing is even relevent, and if relevent, what is the point?
-
Originally posted by Murdr
... Criticizing what he said, why he said it, the validity of his statments, thats cool. So why bring up the KKK? He wasnt a Robert Byrd or a David Duke. Even if he was, what does that have to do with what he said in his speech? Absolutely nothing. What does that have to do with the validity of his claims? Absolutely nothing. I wonder what the next tact will be when that generation that lived through the civil rights changes eventually die off. ...
We'll be mostly dead in about 20 or 30 years. Enjoy the wait. Thanks for caring.
And what a person says in the context of the associations which define his belief structures is very crucial. Because the Klan's ideals impart a subtext for anything said by someone who belongs, or belonged, to it. You join the Klan because you believe what they believe, right? This ain't like joining a bowling league. So if you believed in ethnic hatred enough to join the Klan, or even hang out with them, that colors (no pun intended) anything you say to the ears of people who aren't into genocide.
You're born with your race - you choose to join the Klan. And that choice carries forward. Saying that it doesn't matter if he is or was a member of the Klan is very disturbing.
Afterall, anyone in an elected office in this country should believe that "all men are created equal", right? The KKK doesn't believe that - quite the contrary. So just who is this man representing?
Note that I'm not talking about Zell specifically here, I'm talking about the generalization you made about association with a hate group being irrelevant.
All that being said, I don't know squat about Zell up til this week, but what I saw wasn't impressive. It was not what I would expect from a statesman. However, from what I saw of his tirade, there was nothing racial in it.
-DoK
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
You're born with your race - you choose to join the Klan. And that choice carries forward. Saying that it doesn't matter if he is or was a member of the Klan is very disturbing
I did not say that it didnt matter. What I did say it is out of line to throw Zell in with the KKK in this conversation. He worked for/associated with known segregationist at one time. I find it offensive to make the strech to refer to him as a klan member. I also grow tired of this stereo-type pre-judgment of people today based on where they stood half a century ago. That in and of itself is bigotry. Right and wrong is a constant, but the degree in which it is viewed varies in society over time. It is disingenous to judge peoples actions generations ago based solely on what is socially acceptable today. There is no context in it.
This did not enter the discussion as oh, by the way 40 years ago this guy was still alinged with segregationist. IT ENTERED THE DISCUSSION AS A US SENATOR ADDRESSING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CONVENTION IS AKIN TO A KKK RALLY?
If you dont see anything wrong with that, then I really have to question exactly who the hatefull bigots are around here. This is BS and I am calling it.
-
I thought Jon Stewart's piece on Zell Miller to be very telling..
Watching the 'keynote' speaker was very frightening to me. That man was full of hate and fear. As already stated it is sad to see such emotions exhibited from a 'statesman'. Its very sad to me to see and read some stating how they thought he gave an inspiring speech. If that is the direction our leaders are going and it is acceptable, even wanted, by the people... Well, why even say it..
Zell Miller is democrate by name only. I saw him interviewed and he stated he was democrate because of where he was from. He said 'his people are democrates'.. The area where he grew up was democrate. The quilt he was cut from was a democratic quilt. I think you can get the point.
Strange to see such anger from the party that has had entire control of the government for almost 4 years now..
-
I thought the moonbats reply to Miller to be very telling. (http://dogsnot.net/mt/archives/000512.html)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I thought the moonbats reply to Miller to be very telling. (http://dogsnot.net/mt/archives/000512.html)
That video from Zell was from the 1992 DNC:rolleyes:
Waht does that have to do with now. He was talking about Bush Sr.
-
Originally posted by Coolridr
That video from Zell was from the 1992 DNC:rolleyes:
Waht does that have to do with now. He was talking about Bush Sr.
Exactly my point.
I guess it's all they could dig up.
-
Yea I noticed that little video when I visted the DNC site after zell's speech.
What did they do? Have Micheal Moore put it together.. It was typical of his sleight of hand. I loved the obvious despertaion of that lying little video.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
... I also grow tired of this stereo-type pre-judgment of people today based on where they stood half a century ago. That in and of itself is bigotry. Right and wrong is a constant, but the degree in which it is viewed varies in society over time. It is disingenous to judge peoples actions generations ago based solely on what is socially acceptable today. ...
I would agree with you here. When Perot ran, despite some of his untimely ways of referring to minorities when he spoke, it was clear where he stood. It was obvious that a lot of his mannerisms were simply a reflection of the era in which he was born.
And I said in my post that I saw nothing racially suggestive in Zell's RNC rant. (And, sorry, it was a rant.)
But ... in general principles ... in matters a whole hell of a lot if someone was at any time in their lives associated with the KKK. The point you were trying to make is valid, but the way you made it was very, very inflamatory whether you know it or not.
And, since you opened the door, Viet Nam was almost a generation ago. If it wouldn't matter if Zell was wearing a white hood in the 1970's, why does it matter so much that Kerry was speaking out about the war at the same time? Look at the last line of your post that I quoted. Oops. Yeah.
The answer is they both matter, but they must be taken in context and in degree.
-DoK
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
I thought Jon Stewart's piece on Zell Miller to be very telling..
...
McCain's explanation was priceless: "I guess John Kerry shot his [Zell's] dog."
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Watching the 'keynote' speaker was very frightening to me. That man was full of hate and fear.
Maybe you should stick with Mary Popins. :p
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
McCain's explanation was priceless: "I guess John Kerry shot his [Zell's] dog."
lol ya.. I wanna rip on McCain for what hes doing right now with the RNC, but he makes it so damn hard..
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yea I noticed that little video when I visted the DNC site after zell's speech.
What did they do? Have Micheal Moore put it together.. It was typical of his sleight of hand. I loved the obvious despertaion of that lying little video.
They made the "1992 convention" part as hard to see as possible...dark grey against a black backgound and a font size of like maybe 2.
-
Just damn
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
If it wouldn't matter if Zell was wearing a white hood in the 1970's, why does it matter so much that Kerry was speaking out about the war at the same time? Look at the last line of your post that I quoted. Oops. Yeah.
The answer is they both matter, but they must be taken in context and in degree.
-DoK
DoK, mabey you were speaking retorically, I dont know. My point is that Miller was not wearing the white hood. As governor he actually has a good record of being fair with minorities, with judicial appoitments, MLKjr day, the state flag.
It is a stereo type. An old white southern uppity man = KKK. I argue that tapping that stereo type is no differnet that any other ratial stero type. While evoking a black stereo type will get you filleted, doing it on Zell yeilds a "hmmm thats plausible".
I agree with your point to a degree. Kerrys past should also be viewed in historical perspective. There is the difference that Miller is a retiring senator, and Kerry wants to be president. If the situation was reversed I would want to know about a stance on segregation, and I would expect to see a record afterwards that reflected a change of heart on the issue.
-
Originally posted by Murdr
DoK, mabey you were speaking retorically, I dont know. My point is that Miller was not wearing the white hood. As governor he actually has a good record of being fair with minorities, with judicial appoitments, MLKjr day, the state flag.
It is a stereo type. An old white southern uppity man = KKK. I argue that tapping that stereo type is no differnet that any other ratial stero type. While evoking a black stereo type will get you filleted, doing it on Zell yeilds a "hmmm thats plausible".
I agree with your point to a degree. Kerrys past should also be viewed in historical perspective. There is the difference that Miller is a retiring senator, and Kerry wants to be president. If the situation was reversed I would want to know about a stance on segregation, and I would expect to see a record afterwards that reflected a change of heart on the issue.
I agree that "political correctness" has become very 1-directional to the point of idiocy.
I was speaking rheotically about Zell and the KKK. The point was that *if* someone has an affiliation with the KKK, it does matter - it taints anything the person says or does. Whethere or not he in particular belongs wasn't an issue I cared to debate.
As for Zell v. Kerry ... what was one of the things he said: "It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest." How can he so glorify the US soldier *and* the right to disagree with policy by protest in his speach one minute, and then in the same breath rip to shreds a decorated war hero and an activist for peace? I think you can see how some folks - regardless of party affiliation - see this as something less than "statesmanlike."
The fact that Zell is on his way out and Kerry is running for Pres makes NO difference. Either you respect the uniform and those who served in it - even those you may disagree with - or you don't. You can't wave the flag and at the same time spit on someone who bled for it. The personal attacks - direct and implied - were completely uncalled for and I felt tarnished the convention.