Well, the speech just ended a couple minutes ago...

What did everyone think?

Just a note on a few things he said…mostly the war.

Bush said in Europe we did it (comparing it to Iraq) and we made it a more stable place in the world! But we were with tons of countries and allies.

In Iraq he named of all of these countries that are helping us…but in Iraq the percents don’t add up. America takes up 90% of the troops in Iraq and almost all the burden, and in Europe it was fairly split. He really does not understand the differences. Nor that you need the world to do something like this.

General Tony Mickpeak (who was one of the leading officers in the first Gulf War) said we need three times the amount of troops in Iraq. It’s ridiculous to think Iraq is secure in a Democracy when we have military officials saying we need about triple the amount of troops in Iraq to make it stable.

Plus, Bush now only uses the fact that we are “liberating” the Iraqis, but the first reasons (that are now false) are that terrorism was prevalent in Iraq and that Saddam had “WMD’s”…

Bush loves to paint that Iraq is in a wonderful state. But really car bombings are occurring, deformities are becoming prevalent, and chaos is running high.

ya, micheal moores iraq of saddam with kids flying kites and good times had by all ws much more accurate :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Travh20
ya, micheal moores iraq of saddam with kids flying kites and good times had by all ws much more accurate :rolleyes:

Never said it did, now did I? Why do you assume I believe everything Mr. Moore puts in his movies? I hardly mentioned the Iraq before we invaded it. But it isn’t much better off now…plus, it’s not our duty as America to be in Iraq when terrorism is high. This is a war on terrorism not dictators.

It’s funny because in Saudi Arabia they are horrible to their people, and yet we do trade and business with them. They cut off heads, feet and hands. They do the exact same things. They are a horrible country…but we don’t seem to mind that. People die in Africa and because of world hunger…at a much higher and more horrible rate then what was occurring in Iraq. It’s ridiculous to put them before these other causes of death. If we care so much about “people dying” and “liberating people” why don’t we liberate people of world hunger and horrible diseases? That would save the most lives and do the most good in the world. Right now we have killed over 10,000 Iraqis and have them in a world of hurt and chaos. We need three times the amount of troops in Iraq, to secure it. If we knew we couldn’t secure it, maybe we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.

It’s funny how Bush mentioned none of the other reasons for the Iraq War, but that we are “liberating them” into a horrible future. A future with terrorism and insecurity. We need three times the amount of troops in Iraq to secure it…and deformities are occurring very highly. It’s silly to assume we are giving them a great country.

Keep in mind though, in Europe other countries were more developed than they are now. America rose, others fell.

overdose, why dont you just go out and shoot yourself and get it over with? the horrible future will probably get you killed anyway. man you such a weakling. a few bumps in the raod and its a "horrible future", someone needs a reality check. maybe you need to get out of portland and away from the parades and kerry rallies for a while.

How do we know he is lieing?

His lips are moving.

He has proven he is a liar. He lied to the entire country. Stood on a podium, looked into the camera and made false statements to the American people. Why are some people blind to this? The same people who were all up in arms about our last president lieing about his sex life don't seem to give a shit that this one lied to us in order to start a war.

His speach was full of the same old rhetoric he has been spewing for months. How happy the Iraqi people are now, how great the economy is now, how much safer from terrorism we are now and how incredibly middle of the road he is. ALL LIES.

Oh yeah, that speech should cost him many moderate votes. All hat no cattle.

Kerry doesn't have to campaign -- Bush is doing it for him.

Dop

Originally posted by Travh20
overdose, why dont you just go out and shoot yourself and get it over with? the horrible future will probably get you killed anyway. man you such a weakling. a few bumps in the raod and its a "horrible future", someone needs a reality check. maybe you need to get out of portland and away from the parades and kerry rallies for a while.

Trav, this is supposed to be a thread about Bush's speech not how much you dislike OD.

First of all, convention speeches are supposed to be pep talks, not a place to announce new policies.

Some impressions:

Bush was a very un-dynamic speaker.

He called Kerry a tax-and-spend democrat, said he wanted to make the tax cut permanent, and announced several ways he wanted to spend more money. :@@:

He brought up the tired phrase "activist judges" and said he wants to protect the sanctity of marriage, presumably by amending the Constitution which he swore an oath to preserve. He mentioned that medical decisions should be made by doctors and not "Washington bureaucrats", and went on to say that laws should be passed to protect the "unborn". :@@:

As important as what he said was what he didn't say. He made no mention of Osama Bin Laden. He hailed the achievement of getting Lybia to dismantle their "nucular" weapons program, and pointedly said nothing about North Korea.

All in all, I thought the speech was mediocre at best, and will do little to sway undecided voters.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Bush was a very un-dynamic speaker.

He called Kerry a tax-and-spend democrat, said he wanted to make the tax cut permanent, and announced several ways he wanted to spend more money. :@@:

I didn't see much of it, but yes, quite undynamic. Although I think he made up for it with that sort of aw shucks self-depricating humor. Those of us not in the rabid "Bush = Hitler" camp can at least relate to the guy - he comes off as a decent guy. Not that I consider that especially relevant to being President.

The part of the speech that I saw was about his plan for smaller government, lower taxes, etc. The usual Republican stuff. All of which I'm in favor of. Seems to me he's made this promise before and while we did end up with lower taxes, we also got a lot more spending and a larger government. So why should I believe him this time?

Originally posted by Travh20
overdose, why dont you just go out and shoot yourself and get it over with? the horrible future will probably get you killed anyway. man you such a weakling. a few bumps in the raod and its a "horrible future", someone needs a reality check. maybe you need to get out of portland and away from the parades and kerry rallies for a while.

Wow, funny how you cannot attack the issues…just personally insult me. Good reply Trav, keep up the good work.

For those people that didn't have a job before bush spoke at the rnc, guess what? Now that he's done speaking at the rnc, you still don't have a job and even better ... he has no plan to get you a job. 73,000 jobs per month go to India. There's not much more one can say.

Kerry served -- Bush swerved

ROTF

Dop

Bush was awesome. I cant wait because Bush is coming to a sold out stadium in Erie PA about 2 miles from where I live. I cant wait to go and see him. He is coming direct from the RNC. This will be great when bush beats kerry in a landslide.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
This will be great when bush beats kerry in a landslide.

Please send me a little of what you're smoking. :D

well, a quick post convention Time poll shows bush up by over 10 points, so he must have said somethign right. Dop, overdose and pagan saying they didnt like it isnt suprising.

Again, he went to the misleading line of how Kerry "voted for the 87 million before I voted against it". They continue to use that line without explaining the valid explaination behind it...that the bill changed, and Kerry was voting against the new version to prove a point becaus it was going to pass anyway. It would be similar to me wanting Kerry over Bush, but the day before the election all the polls showed he was losing by 40%...In that case, I would vote for Nader just to give him my vote because Kerry would lose with or without it.

But, since Bush is saying that a quote says it all...here is Bush saying he wants to harm our country:

http://www.ifilm.com/viralvideo?ifilmid=2646557

What did he mean when he said "and niether do we"? All this time I thought he just mis-spoke and meant to imply that we never stop thinking of new ways to harm THIER people and THIER country...not OURS. But I just realized that even if he meant that it is inexcusable. He wants to harm their people and country??? Thats horrible.

BWAhahahaha A TIME Poll (CNN in disguise) and trav is all excited. Everyone knows that all their polls are 'outliers'.

Yeah, haven't we heard all this before ... IIRC, CNN?TIME had Bush was up by several points just berfore the 2000 elections and he lost the popular vote by 500,000.


CNN/Time Poll
10/25-26/00 Gore 43 Bush 49 Buch 1 Nader 3 Not Sure 4 1,076LV
10/12-13/00 Gore 43 Bush 48 - 4 5 603LV
10/4-5/00 Gore 45 Bush 47 1 4 3 636LV
9/6-7/00 Gore 47 Bush 46 1 4 2 818LV
8/9-10/00 Gore 39 Bush 53

And there's the little matter of Judy Woodruff spilling the beans today on Inside Politics when she thought the cameras had gone to comercial and said that the other CNN poll that they didn't show had kerry/bush tied. After the commercial break she was clearly shook -- probably lose her job over it. No one rats on the junta.

ROTF

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
BWAhahahaha A TIME Poll (CNN in disguise) and trav is all excited. Everyone knows that all their polls are 'outliers'.

Yeah, haven't we heard all this before ... IIRC, CNN?TIME had Bush was up by several points just berfore the 2000 elections and he lost the popular vote by 500,000.


CNN/Time Poll
10/25-26/00 Gore 43 Bush 49 Buch 1 Nader 3 Not Sure 4 1,076LV
10/12-13/00 Gore 43 Bush 48 - 4 5 603LV
10/4-5/00 Gore 45 Bush 47 1 4 3 636LV
9/6-7/00 Gore 47 Bush 46 1 4 2 818LV
8/9-10/00 Gore 39 Bush 53

And there's the little matter of Judy Woodruff spilling the beans today on Inside Politics when she thought the cameras had gone to comercial and said that the other CNN poll that they didn't show had kerry/bush tied. After the commercial break she was clearly shook -- probably lose her job over it. No one rats on the junta.

ROTF

Dop

Ah! The one day I dont want IP she does that?

I think you can tell with her expression she hates Bush pretty badly, so I like her. lol.

Anyway....


Does anyone think he had any memorable one liners from last night that will be in the quotebooks.

Like Kerry's reporting for duty line or something. I didnt think their was much excitement in anything he said. He sounded more like he was doing a half state of union half state of bush address....not saying a lot that would pump his GOPers or attract swingers.

Dop-- the correct word is shaken, not shook...

I didn't watch the President's speech, but I listened to some of it from the other room.... Didn't say anything that jumps out in my memory... although I do remember my younger brother saying "Why are all the Bush people so ugly?" LOL... I agree with Lionel about him coming off as a nice guy though, just not one who I think is fit to be President at all.

Heres something that was brought up on Wolf Blitzer...and I have been thinking about it.

Either time her father appeared on stage, the lesbian daughter of VP Dick Cheney did not appear with him.

Republican Officials said she decided to not appear on stage for personal reasons...which led Wolf to ask first lady Laura Bush did the president have anything to do with her not appearing on stage...to which she responded, I'd like to thank it was her on decision.

After she said this....I thought...."like to thank?" Which says to me, that she hopes.

I would like to know your opinions on this.

First, do you think the president did have something to do with her absense from the RNC stage.

Second, if word got out that he did tell (especially if he made her) her not to be on stage....do you think he would recieve another character blow...or would his republican base grow stronger?

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
Well, the speech just ended a couple minutes ago...

What did everyone think?


Excellent Speech.

Honesty, Integrity & Character are the marks of this man. May he reign for another 4 more years and may he instill in all those with loose moral values a desire to stand up, be strong & be courageous to look evil in the eye, call it by its name and never ever flinch in its face again.

4 more years

Originally posted by 4MAWEARS
May he reign for another 4 more years

Reign? This is America, dammit, not a kingdom.

And wouldnt "another four more" be redundant?

I cant wait til debate time, Kerry will eat Bush alive.

i remember the debates last election......

while Gore was the better speaker, he came across as a total A-hole and everyone knew it. Kerry will do no "eating alive" in the debates. While Gore was a good speaker and could "outspeak" Bush, Kerry only sings and preaches like a crazed mad man whenever he talks about what he wants to do. I think it will be a very interesting debate.....

DarkFan -- XQQQQMWA for not shaking correctly. :D and please don't tell me yer gonna try to get me to clean-up all my grammar. That's a big challenge. OTOH, if you really want me to learn the past tense of shake, well I guess that's not asking too much. I'll put it on my list right after learning how to spell conjagateshun and past partasippull.

BTW: Looks like the bounce didn't last very long ... RAS has it back to even already. And IIRC, after the dem convention and kerry got a small bounce, didn't CNN, FOX et al tell us that you have to wait until the following Monday before polls were meaningful? Yeah I thought so too but then they jumped on the polls and posted them immediately after the RNC after they told us that is not what smart people do. Where did they find these people?

Dop

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Reign? This is America, dammit, not a kingdom.

ooops - ok may he rule for 4 more years!

Originally posted by 4MAWEARS
ooops - ok may he rule for 4 more years!


How about he go sit on the couch for four more years, LMAO.

And as far as Bush NOT getting ate alive. Bush is a horrible speaker. He has poor communication skills. He isnt half as bright as Kerry. He doesnt know the issues as good as Kerry. And unlike going before the commission, he wont have Dick Cheney holding his hand.

Can I get a ROTF Dop? lol.

Now what exactly has Bush done so that he should be put in the special ed class? Is it because he isn't so hot at public speaking?

Lot's of smart people cannot speak in front of a crowd so well.

To me, the only people who are great at speaking are actors and salesmen. One takes classes to learn how to fake it, and the other works on commission. Politicains are usually a mix of both.

It is also my opinion that stupid people cannot graduate from ivy league colleges and then run for, win, and hold the office of president.

It is also my opinion that stupid people cannot graduate from ivy league colleges and then run for, win, and hold the office of president.

Ah, but do you remember the former Washington Redskins football player (I think it was Dexter Manley)? He graduated from Oklahoma State University, then at the age of 28 he testified in front of congress that he never learned how to read.

I'm not saying Bush did the same, but it is possible to get by in a major college if you are the BMOC or have someone pulling strings for you.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
And as far as Bush NOT getting ate alive. Bush is a horrible speaker. He has poor communication skills. He isnt half as bright as Kerry. He doesnt know the issues as good as Kerry. And unlike going before the commission, he wont have Dick Cheney holding his hand.

They said the same thing 4 years ago and what happened - Bush made up some new words but basically held his own because egghead Gore was babbling on incessantly about lockboxes.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
They said the same thing 4 years ago and what happened - Bush made up some new words but basically held his own because egghead Gore was babbling on incessantly about lockboxes.

I dont think Gore knew what he was facing. Bush was not as known as Gore to most, and his intelligence which had been put under scruitiny has never gotten its time to really shine (other than the "dont mess with texas" crap at his convention that made my ears want to bleed.)

I am no gifted analyst by any means, but I would bet a small fortune that Kerry will wipe the floor with Bush, because Bush does not have the smarts and surely not the record to fight back. Look for a lot of unfactual slander from Bush, and a lot of true slaps in the face from Kerry.

Quote Me.

Originally posted by jerejerebinks

I am no gifted analyst by any means, but I would bet a small fortune that Kerry will wipe the floor with Bush, because Bush does not have the smarts and surely not the record to fight back. Look for a lot of unfactual slander from Bush, and a lot of true slaps in the face from Kerry.

Quote Me.

Yea right on bro - just like Gore did in 2000.

Seems like the same mistake is being made all over again.

Originally posted by 4MAWEARS
Yea right on bro - just like Gore did in 2000.

Seems like the same mistake is being made all over again.
There is a key difference between 2000 and 2004 - now, the Dems want Bush out BAD. They are far more desperate and may resort to some of the dirty tricks the Republicans pulled in 2000. (That's not to say the Dems don't have their own dirty tricks already -- they do -- but I'm talking about some of the smear stuff Rove pulls.)

the arrogant democrats leading this charge will once again underestimate their opponent, and believe they themselves are so freaking smart all they have to do is show up.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
There is a key difference between 2000 and 2004 - now, the Dems want Bush out BAD. They are far more desperate and may resort to some of the dirty tricks the Republicans pulled in 2000. (That's not to say the Dems don't have their own dirty tricks already -- they do -- but I'm talking about some of the smear stuff Rove pulls.)

I'd have a little more respect for them if they did. So far they've just stood there and took it.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
The part of the speech that I saw was about his plan for smaller government, lower taxes, etc. The usual Republican stuff. All of which I'm in favor of. Seems to me he's made this promise before and while we did end up with lower taxes, we also got a lot more spending and a larger government. So why should I believe him this time?

Good question. Unfortunately, we have no candidate who wants a smaller government. Ironically, I'll prolly vote for Kerry simply because he recognizes the REAL looming problem for the United States, as well as the rest of the world: the environment.

In the meantime, Bush is still stuck in 1950's screw-the-environment-in-favor-of-industry mode, and only begrudgingly admits that the greenhouse effect is really occuring, despite a coalition of Nobel laureates and the head of the EPA telling sounding alarms.

Oh well, why do I even bother stressing? No doubt Bush will when based on the moron-vote alone.

Personally, i feel that enviromental risks are seriously over-hyped. There is always another side to the story. Also, keep in mind, one big reason that there were all those forest fires recently is that the enviromentalists would not allow controlled burns of the forest because some animals and trees would die. So, all this brush piled up and then a spark, poof. Now lots of animals and trees have died.