Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

RNC
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=706		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  TURKEY [ Sat Sep 04, 2004 10:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hey, where's the forum talking about the Libertarian National Convention? Or does anybody watch C-SPAN.....
Author:  Professor No [ Sat Sep 04, 2004 10:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
TURKEY wrote:
Hey, where's the forum talking about the Libertarian National Convention? Or does anybody watch C-SPAN.....


#1: Nobody watches C-SPAN or C-SPAN2.
#2: The LNC has been over for two months.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Mon Sep 06, 2004 1:13 am ]
Post subject: 
Young Republicans support Iraq war, but not all are willing to join the fight.

Not much to say about it, but I love some of the justifications these kids are offering:

Quote:
"As long as there's a steady stream of volunteers, I don't see why I necessarily should volunteer," said Lee, who has a cousin deployed in the Middle East.


Of course, there isn't a steady stream of volunteers. Recruitment right now is way, way down.

Quote:
"We don't have to be there physically to fight it,"


Yeah, tell that to the parents of the thousand kids who've lost their lives for this President so far.

So, I have a question for those of you who still think this war and its 13,000 deaths is a good idea: Why aren't you over there? Why aren't you one of the thousands of men and boys who have willfully left their careers, their spouses and children, and their educations behind, possibly never to return? How much do you really support the war on Iraq?
Author:  Professor No [ Mon Sep 06, 2004 3:02 am ]
Post subject: 
The questions is, how much do you support the War on Terror?

I'm not old enough to be in the military...
Author:  Professor No [ Mon Sep 06, 2004 3:12 am ]
Post subject: 
InterruptorJones wrote
Yeah, tell that to the parents of the thousand kids who've lost their lives for this President so far.

They didn't die for the President, they died for you, for your right to say that they died for the President...More importantly they died for this country. :usa:

Tell me this, how does a war get a president relected?
Author:  Didymus [ Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:42 am ]
Post subject: 
No they didn't. They died for a bunch of people who have nothing better to do than to plant carbombs.
Author:  fossilise_apostle [ Mon Sep 06, 2004 6:06 am ]
Post subject: 
i believe they died for no good reason what so ever.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Mon Sep 06, 2004 5:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Prof. No wrote:
They didn't die for the President, they died for you,


I'm sorry, but this is one of the more naive things I've read on this forum. The Revolutionary War was fought for this country. World War II was fought for this country. The War Against Iraq has not been fought for this country, and certainly not for me. This war is being fought for money, geopolitical supremacy, Daddy, and spite. This war has not made my life (or anybody else's, excepting Halliburton execs) better, it has not made me (or anybody, especially not Iraqis) safer, and it has taken the lives of tens of thousands of people, the vast majority of them innocent.

This is George W. Bush's war, not America's.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
Did you know that some 3% of the RNC attendees were active duty military personnel?

Sound a little strange to you?

If not, maybe I can help you out: Two months ago, it was illegal for active military personnel to attend partisan political conventions. (If you don't understand why this is, then maybe you should think back to Nazi Germany in 1933 when military was allied with a political party.) But a couple weeks before the RNC (and, imagine that, just after the Democratic National Convention), and how conveniently, Bush's pal and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz thought it fit to make a couple choice and discrete alterations to this particular DOD regulation, so that the RNC would be open to active duty military personnel.

What a neat trick. I wonder if Wolfy does parties.
Author:  Professor No [ Tue Sep 07, 2004 11:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
InterruptorJones wrote:
(If you don't understand why this is, then maybe you should think back to Nazi Germany in 1933 when military was allied with a political party.)


Sound fishy to me, but law chaging is common when parties gain power(that doesn't mean I think its right)...

Now to the selected quote, the Nazi Socialist party didn't use the military(they did have non military storm troopers who terrorized the Jewish population) to gain power, Hitler was elected by the German people. There was no coup da' ta in Germany...
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:02 am ]
Post subject: 
Isn't there a rule that says that if you start talking about Nazis and Hitler, the thread should be considered closed?
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:07 am ]
Post subject: 
That's Godwin's Law, Didymus, and there's a bit more nuance to it than that.

And I wasn't comparing Bush to Hitler, I was just illustrating why it's a bad idea to have military organizations affiliated with political parties.

And Professor No, though it's not at at all the topic of this discussion (and indeed I picked a very poor example), you're only half right. Hitler was indeed elected, but he was also in control the Schutzstaffel (i.e. "SS"), a paramilitary group allied exclusively with the Nazi party.
Author:  Professor No [ Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:26 am ]
Post subject: 
True(I had forgonten about the SS waffen), I'm just a big history buff and had to point that out...

So, why do you(everyone) think Bush got a bounce in the polls unlike Kerry did after the convention. I think it was the governator's and Sen. Miller's speech...
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:30 am ]
Post subject: 
Oh, yeah. That's right. It also has to have mentioned the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit in order to be valid.
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:32 am ]
Post subject: 
Professor No wrote:
So, why do you(everyone) think Bush got a bounce in the polls unlike Kerry did after the convention. I think it was the governator's and Sen. Miller's speech...


Kerry did get a bounce after the DNC. You can hardly hold a political convention without getting a bounce. The reason Kerry's bounce wasn't as big as Bush's? Because at the DNC they actually talked about the issues, whereas at the RNC they talked about Kerry and 9/11 (and 9/11 and 9/11 and 9/11 and 9/11 and 9/11). And as this administration has proved time and again, dirty pool works.

But, as the analyst on CNN said last night, the reason they call it a bounce is because it goes up, and then it comes back down.

Concerning Miller, Rasmussen just released a poll that say Americans' impression of him is significanly more negative than it is positive. While you clearly bought his foaming indignities, most Americans didn't.
Author:  Quasimodo [ Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:38 am ]
Post subject: 
Perhaps it also has something to do with the fact that Bush is the incumbent? Historically speaking (if my secondary school history courses were worth anything) the incumbent candidate always holds stronger suit in things. I tend to think that people are hesitant for change unless things are percieved as dire and requiring change.
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Sep 08, 2004 12:41 am ]
Post subject: 
Which is part of the reason I helped to put Clinton in the White House in 92. Of course, I regretted it almost immediately afterward...
Author:  InterruptorJones [ Wed Sep 08, 2004 6:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Salon has a good article about the mistruths at the RNC, in particular the stupefying lies of Zell Miller and Dick Cheney as well as Bush's new TV ads. The GOP is really grasping at straws these days, but considering how their bounce has already fallen flat, I can't blame thim. Actually, that's a lie, too. Of course I can.

P.S. Salon's deal is that you have to watch a 10-second ad before viewing the whole article, but it's painless, I promise.
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/