Democratic Convention

oh boy this topic is like throwing a live gernade into a crowded room and running away ...just asking for the republican supporters to chew it to pieces :angel:

*Stern pulls up a lawnchair to watch the fireworks*
 
I aim to please :)


actually I'm more like a match than fireworks
 
CptStern said:
I aim to please :)
actually I'm more like a match than fireworks
Hmmm - a bit of both.

Varg|Hund - the Democratic Convention as in the Democrats' (US political party) big ole get together where they pat themselves on the back and tell everyone how great they are and how appalling the Republicans are.
<Gets out match-book>
And right they are too...
<Runs>
 
el Chi said:
Hmmm - a bit of both.

Varg|Hund - the Democratic Convention as in the Democrats' (US political party) big ole get together where they pat themselves on the back and tell everyone how great they are and how appalling the Republicans are.
<Gets out match-book>
And right they are too...
<Runs>

*Stern catches up to el Chi to pat him on the back, gj!*
 
BURN THE MOTHERF*CKERS, BUSH RULES!

and

BUSH IS A RETARD, KERRY 4 PRESIDENT!!

So I'm safe, I didn't choose sides here, can't flame me! Ha!
 
NADER IS A STUPID MOTHERLOVING....uh, um.....hold on, I'll have to look up what the hell he's even running on. :D
 
PvtRyan said:
BURN THE MOTHERF*CKERS, BUSH RULES!
and
BUSH IS A RETARD, KERRY 4 PRESIDENT!!
So I'm safe, I didn't choose sides here, can't flame me! Ha!
Neutral sissy! BURN THE FENCE HE SITS UPON! BURN!
<Douses fence in petrol>
Neutral this!
<Flicks match>

But seriously folks - what's the Democrats' position on the War on Terror? I assume, as they disapprove of the war on Iraq, that they intend to stop the madness?

And yeah Dedalus, he would have. Don't worry buddy <Hugs Dedalus>
 
this topic wont pick up till later this evening. You brits arent all that critical of either side (you're all just so annnoyingly pleasant all the time :) ).

Nighttime is when the real uber liberals/conservatives come out to play
 
CptStern said:
You brits arent all that critical of either side (you're all just so annnoyingly pleasant all the time :) ).

Nighttime is when the real uber liberals/conservatives come out to play
Nonsense - I hate Bush and I hope he's completely and utterly demolished. And I'm sure many other Brits feel the same. f he goes, maybe Blair might regain some sanity. If he goes maybe the world will feel slightly safer. God knows.
But yeah, it's going to be... Interesting later.
 
el Chi said:
Nonsense - I hate Bush and I hope he's completely and utterly demolished. And I'm sure many other Brits feel the same. f he goes, maybe Blair might regain some sanity. If he goes maybe the world will feel slightly safer. God knows.
But yeah, it's going to be... Interesting later.

yes I agree ...but I cant mention Bush without being set upon by the conservative watchdogs ...god forbid I have an opinion
 
Well, when you made the Bush lands on the sun comment yesterday, blah... did sort of blow it out of proportion. Ironically, by claiming that you had to make it all political he was the one making it more political than you. Nevertheless, I slightly sort of understood where he was coming from.
But here you have free reign. Go for it. <Hands Stern matches>
 
el Chi said:
But here you have free reign. Go for it. <Hands Stern matches>


uhmmm ....bush is a dummy

*Stern lightly treads upon dangerous waters*
 
CptStern said:
uhmmm ....bush is a dummy
*Stern lightly treads upon dangerous waters*
<Watches in bewilderment as Stern attempts to walk on water. Laughs hysterically when Stern falls in>
Honestly though - anyone please inform me some more about the Demorcats' position on the "Axis of Evil"

Edit: Slight spelling mistake, whereby the Western world was threatened by The Axis of Weevil. Puts a whole new slant on things, doesn't it?
 
*Stern swallows buckets full of seawater after trying to walk on water ...dammit why can jesus walk on water and I cant?*


I think the democrats are in the same boat as the republicans on the isse of iraq...too late to fully withdraw from Iraq without making matters far worse
 
I'm sure as hell not Democratic (not Republican either really), but at this point I don't think they have any drasticly different plans for Iraq. That said, a name change in the White House may do some good on its own.
 
Direwolf said:
I'm sure as hell not Democratic (not Republican either really), but at this point I don't think they have any drasticly different plans for Iraq. That said, a name change in the White House may do some good on its own.

it'll guarantee new material for satire, although admittedly it wont be as easy as it is now
 
Well, no I don't expect them to pull out of Iraq and I certainly don't want them to right now, because there's lots of reparation to be done, etc. However the other countries; Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc; what's the Democrats' intentions for those countries? Will they drop it, because as far as I know Bush intends to "do" those nations too, no?
 
this should explain their intentions

"America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.......

we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. "

bush and cronies = armageddon
 
Well I wouldn't quite say Armageddon but it is grotesquely arrogant to say that the rest of the world can't sort itself out without the US's guiding and oh-so-benevolent hand; it's so disconcerting.

"...it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge..." Shape the world to your best interests is what that phrase seems to boil down to - it's been done before (Chile and Afghanistan being just two examples) and with terrible conclusions.

"...we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. " Once again, I can't get over how sinister and manipulative that sounds. It implies that the US has a duty to sort out the rest of the world in a manner that the result is beneficial to the US, however there is no mention of the benefits to the other countries.

"The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership..." Obey
 
A) Its rhetoric
B) The opposite attitude would be isolationism, which got the US in trouble before too.
As for why they don't go for the middle path, moderation makes lousy speeches.
 
it's rhetoric that is coming from the admin that is currently in charge. Look at the signatories of the site: Cheney, Rumsfeld etc

the thing that gets me is that they dont even hide their intentions
 
a) Maybe, but it sounds far more intentional and sinister to be purely harmless rhetoric.
b) There is a middle ground - one can be a big wheel on the international stage without wanting to have a hand in everything, everyone and trying to change regimes/situations/trade laws to one's own advantage.
Perhaps it may make lousy speeches, but moderation will make you sound less frightening and more sane. Especially with what they're saying and considering how the current administration is perceived by the rest of the world.
 
look at canada as an example. We often lead peacekeeping mission, fund 3rd world countries, give out cheap aids medicines etc. and as a result you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that holds a grudge towards canada

as one of our national tv ads says : "we believe in peacekeeping not policing"
 
I'll watch the democratic convention. Just because I am republican means I can't watch it or understand Kerry and Edwards any better.
 
CptStern said:
look at canada as an example. We often lead peacekeeping mission, fund 3rd world countries, give out cheap aids medicines etc. and as a result you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that holds a grudge towards canada

as one of our national tv ads says : "we believe in peacekeeping not policing"
I think thats also because being mad at Canada is kinda like being mad at New Zealand. I mean, why?
 
because we dont do anything to get people mad at us when's the last time we meddled in someone elses affairs?...france seems to be a target to americans even though they havent done anything to merit it. Canada didnt join the coalition and we never recieved the same type of criticsm as the french did...you even tried to change the name of french fries to "freedom fries" ....man that was just silly
 
when is it going to be one tonight, let's say....eastern time?
 
For the record: just because one of the hundreds of morons in the legislature says something it doesn't mean anyone thinks hes not nuts. The Freedom Fries thing is a good example.
My point was essentially that Canada isn't exactly the largest player in international politics, and everyone has long known where they stand on certain issues. It wasn't a huge surprise that they weren't in on the coalition.
France is a whole nother story. The French government has a pretty extensive history of doing all kinds of dumb or petty things in the UN, and then doing decidedly hypocritical things behind everyone's back.
 
Direwolf said:
For the record: just because one of the hundreds of morons in the legislature says something it doesn't mean anyone thinks hes not nuts. The Freedom Fries thing is a good example.

The average american has nothing good to say about france ...if I hear one more joke about france's military victories I'll have a hissy fit :)

Direwolf said:
My point was essentially that Canada isn't exactly the largest player in international politics, and everyone has long known where they stand on certain issues. It wasn't a huge surprise that they weren't in on the coalition.

canada is in afghanistan, so not joining the coalition was a big surprise to americans (and for that matter to some canadians as well). Bush wasnt exactly on favourable terms with Chretien and a drift has been developing ever since. Paul Martin cozies up a bit more to the americans than Chretien but we still wont be helping in Iraq

Direwolf said:
France is a whole nother story. The French government has a pretty extensive history of doing all kinds of dumb or petty things in the UN, and then doing decidedly hypocritical things behind everyone's back.

France hasnt really done all that much in the international scene one way or another. I think it's the staunch opposition to the war in iraq that has many americans bristling when they talk about the french.
 
The French don't like us and have frequently gone out of their way to remind everyone of the fact, so its no suprise that that works two ways. They've also had a few instances of conflict-of-interest type dealings that have made their actions in the UN often suspect.
On the subject of Canada, I should rather have said that I wasn't at all surprised that they didn't join. In addition even those who were blindsided by the decision realized that the consequences of it was limited. Canada was not a make-or-break member.
 
Direwolf said:
The French don't like us and have frequently gone out of their way to remind everyone of the fact, so its no suprise that that works two ways. They've also had a few instances of conflict-of-interest type dealings that have made their actions in the UN often suspect.


I never understood the reason ...since you're american you probably have a better prespective on the issue ...can you name specific examples?

Direwolf said:
On the subject of Canada, I should rather have said that I wasn't at all surprised that they didn't join. In addition even those who were blindsided by the decision realized that the consequences of it was limited. Canada was not a make-or-break member.

true we already have our forces spread thin what with peacekeeping in afghanistan, East timor, Bosnia, Haiti etc

we're actually in the Guiness book of records for most troops in peacekeeping
 
Myself I've always seen the France-America thing as just a dumb little rivalry. Everyone knows about it, and its usually pretty lighthearted when talking about it in public. It probably grows out of France have a reputation that is very counter to the US's. US has always prided itself on technical achievements, France upon cultural ones. The US is proud of its military history, and France's is really mixed at best.
Its since gotten a bit more serious, but thats mostly just because of the ass-hattery thats been occuring on both sides in the UN. The US was determined to do something, and France was attempting to block by any means even though they didn't seem to have an direct stake in the events. To many people that makes it look like they're doing it out of spite.
 
well to be fair france did have billions of $ invested in iraq's oil fields not to mention the billions in loans and years of developing business ventures in iraq ...so you can see how france might be a bit pissed off with regime change

but I was referring more to the common american ...try posting a thread on france and I'll bet there'll be at least half a dozen potshots at france
 
The Offspring song "Cool to Hate" comes to mind.

With that said, there are some fairly large political differences that seperate France from the United States. A lot of it stems from political idealogies. The rest of the hatred toward France stems from the need to have someone to blame. It also doesn't hurt that France never had a good reputation for treating US citizens on vacation.
 
Back
Top