Support NeoGAF

[xsarien]

In this case, the monument was just there.

...In front of a court house, which all but implied a state, if not local government's endorsement of one particular God over another. I suspect that most people in support of the monument, or at least didn't see the problem with it, would sing a different tune if it were praising, say, Allah, put there by a Muslim judge.

 

[Hitokage]

...In front of a court house, which all but implied a state, if not local government's endorsement of one particular God over another. I suspect that most people in support of the monument, or at least didn't see the problem with it, would sing a different tune if it were praising, say, Allah, put there by a Muslim judge.

Not only that, but the judge publicly rejected the idea that similar representation for other religions would be allowed... and his state's constitution explicitly forbids the act.

 

[seismologist]

LMAO, they've got the black Miss America sitting next to Trent Lott and his wife.

 

[golem]

dont f-- with al franken!

Last night at around 8 p.m., Al Franken, who is here on behalf of Air America, got into a shoving match with Laura Ingraham's producer. The two men argued about whether Franken had agreed to go on Laura's show and then reneged. The producer started to walk away, but Franken chased him, yelling insults, and the altercation followed.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007674.php

 

[Killthee]

Did Arny just say "terminate terrorism" and "don't be an economic Girly Man"?
:lol :lol :lol He's a fucking joke!

 

[Tenguman]

Aside from the arnie'isms, i think this speech is pretty darn good.

 

[tedtropy]

Did Arny just say "terminate terrorism" and "don't be an economic Girly Man"?
:lol :lol :lol He's a fucking joke!

I was hoping he was going to follow up the "terminate terroism" line with an explanation on how he about to initialize California's Project Skynet.

"And if you go back in time and rescue John Conner...you are a Republican!"

 

[Baron Aloha]

I'm watching MSNBC. Did the camera just flash by Corey Feldman? :lol

 

[fennec fox]

Well, yeah, I like Mr. Schwarzenegger as a person as well. He's funny and he always says exactly what he feels about an issue, which seems to be very rare these days among leading politicians.

The problem is that he got elected in what was essentially a statewide popularity contest against the worst California governor in years, but the state Senate remained largely the same and largely Democratic. The result is a stalemate that's been going on since his inauguration on almost every current issue facing the state right now. As a governor, then, he's been mostly ineffecive so far.

Also, he still has not legalized ferrets.

 

[Baron Aloha]

LOL @ the Bush twins. This "speech" is friggin terrible. They are stiffer than John Kerry.

 

[MetatronM]

Arnold gave the speech of the show. Sure it wasn't terribly big on policy, and yes, it was a big "rah-rah-America!" speech, and I certainly don't agree with the overall message of how great Bush is, but it had the crowd in the palm of his hand and his showmanship just really can't be trumped by any real politician. In terms of energizing and motivating a crowd as well as reaching out to the very hearts of some of those possible swing voters, I don't think anybody's appeal is going to be stronger than Arnold's.

That said, it's a good thing he can't run for President, because the ease with which he would win that election is just scary.

 

[Gruco]

LOL @ the Bush twins.

When the one said "we've studied abroad," I was was just so sure it was going to be followed up with "or two." Can't believe they let that one slip. Oh well.

 

[Kobun Heat]

"I'd like to answer the question I think any one of you would ask me if we sat down for coffee."

"Is this Folgers?"

 

[Baron Aloha]

Hey Laura, why not talk about how your husband is the first president in more than a generation to have a net loss of jobs under his watch? Or how about how he turned a record surplus into a record deficit?

 

[Matt]

So...many...lies...must...control...gag...reflex...

 

[Catchpenny]

Laura looks like she's had more than a few Botox injections. I think she's shown two facial expressions through this whole speech.

 

[Minotauro]

So...many...lies...must...control...gag...reflex...

They're not lies. They're truth departing-related program activities.

 

[seismologist]

*sigh* Bush is in more trouble than I though

 

[Diablos]

Boring, boring, boring.

Ahhnold is an idiot. IF YOU THINK WHAT I THINK MAKES YOU A REPUBLICON THAN YOU ARE A REPUBLICON!!!

 

[Alcibiades]

drudgereport.com

FLASH: FOXNEWS PULLS 3,868,000 VIEWERS BETWEEN 8-11:30 PM ET MONDAY [VIEWERSHIP HITS 4,616,000 DURING RUDY SPEECH]; CNN AT 1,262,000 VIEWERS; MSNBC SCORES 854,000...

I'm really surprised at how well MSNBC is doing, they surpassed CNN in rating recently for many of their shows, and now they are less than .4 million viewers from beating them on RNC viewing.

That said, it could also be because CNN's liberal/Democratic audience isn't tuning in this week

Seriously though, CNN is the really boring sometimes. They have some good panelists/guest sometimes, but Aaron Brown is boring, Larry King doesn't do interviews well, and pretty much their political crew is really not that insightful, pretty much they spout a theme or two going on and just talk about them in a simplified and repetative way. Fox News though has really awesome analysts (especially guys like Charles Krouthammer, Cici Conalley, Mara Liasson, Mort Kondrake, Fred Barnes, and Juan Williams) that really dig into issues and tell you what's happening "between the lines"/"underneath the surface" and are way more insightful. They also make sure to clarify anything that a "non-expert" audience might not understand, like clarifying what acroymns stand for and defining terms.

 

[KingV]

My point is that the approach taken by the Bush Administration has fallen flat on it's face on all accounts. This war on terrorism is fought on a multitude of fronts, and as I pointed out, the Bush administration has failed on many of those fronts. Anti-American terrorism and terrorist ideals still exist, and in some parts of the World is even more vicious and stronger than ever before. That's sign enough that you need someone man enough to do the job. I don't know if Kerry is, but Bush certainly isn't, we have proof of this.

That's a very difficult statement to validate. I have significant doubts that you can lend significant, non-subjective, proof that the war on terrorism has fallen flat on its face, or that terrorist organizations are stronger than they were prior to 9/11. I think it's more likely that the national attention is just focused more highly upon terrorism after 9/11, that even if anti-american sentiment was decreasing, most people would not be in any position to validate it due to anti-american sentiment being a hot topic in world news.

There definitely has been significant advances in the war on terrorism, specifically routing the Taliban and Al Qaeda from their home base in Afghanistan. They're on the run, operating under more pressure than before. Though the post-afghanistan era has been something of a let down, lets not forget that the rebuilding is a UN run operation, and not a "unilateral" action. All of the world deserves to be put to shame for that, USA included.

Further, under what criteria do you measure success in the war on terror? Attacks on American soil? Number of Arrests? Public Awareness? The fact there still are terrorists at large? Basically, I think it's far too early to make any call on the eventual outcome of the War on Terrorism. Is the fact that there have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11 proof that Bush has been successful, or just the status quo? Nobody really knows. Not you, not me, nor anybody else in this forum.

I'll freely admit that I disagree with Bush on many, many social issues, but I will vote for him because I'm glad to see a CIC that's willing to take a risk and do something when attacked. Clinton's measured responses after the embassy and Cole bombings did little but embolden terrorists. To his credit, he probably did not realize this at the time. No one in the US did, but 9/11 changed all of that. Bush, for all his faults, was willing to step up to bat and play ball. His war on terror might be highly misguided, overly ambitious, etc, but we don't really know yet. It's just too early to tell conclusively. Get back to me in 15 years.

 

[Dilbert]

With all due respect -- you are talking out of your ass, and what you just posted makes no sense when you examine it.

There definitely has been significant advances in the war on terrorism, specifically routing the Taliban and Al Qaeda from their home base in Afghanistan.

...and then, a few sentences later:

Further, under what criteria do you measure success in the war on terror? Attacks on American soil? Number of Arrests? Public Awareness? The fact there still are terrorists at large? Basically, I think it's far too early to make any call on the eventual outcome of the War on Terrorism. Is the fact that there have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11 proof that Bush has been successful, or just the status quo? Nobody really knows.

So which is it -- are we making "significant advances" in the "war on terrorism" (I HATE that goddamn term), or is it unmeasurable? Pick one, but not both -- they are logically inconsistent viewpoints.

And, for MORE tortured logic, how about another example?

I'll freely admit that I disagree with Bush on many, many social issues, but I will vote for him because I'm glad to see a CIC that's willing to take a risk and do something when attacked.

...and then, a few sentences later:

His war on terror might be highly misguided, overly ambitious, etc, but we don't really know yet. It's just too early to tell conclusively.

So let me get this straight. Even though you admit that Bush is at best a compromise candidate from your point of view (because of the differences on social issues), you support him strongly because he took bold action...even though that bold action might, in fact, be DISASTROUS?

I'm sorry, but that line of reasoning is ridiculous. If you claim to not know whether what Bush did will end up being a good choice or an incredibly harmful one, then why are you so willing to give him points for simply making a choice?

Last but not least, how can you claim to need "15 years" to evaluate our current actions in Iraq, but at the same time claim that what Clinton did during his administration was wrong? Check the calendar, and tell me what you find out.

Why don't you just do yourself a favor, admit that you're going to vote for Bush no matter what, and move on?

 

[Matt]

That's a very difficult statement to validate. I have significant doubts that you can lend significant, non-subjective, proof that the war on terrorism has fallen flat on its face, or that terrorist organizations are stronger than they were prior to 9/11. I think it's more likely that the national attention is just focused more highly upon terrorism after 9/11, that even if anti-american sentiment was decreasing, most people would not be in any position to validate it due to anti-american sentiment being a hot topic in world news.

There definitely has been significant advances in the war on terrorism, specifically routing the Taliban and Al Qaeda from their home base in Afghanistan. They're on the run, operating under more pressure than before. Though the post-afghanistan era has been something of a let down, lets not forget that the rebuilding is a UN run operation, and not a "unilateral" action. All of the world deserves to be put to shame for that, USA included.

Further, under what criteria do you measure success in the war on terror? Attacks on American soil? Number of Arrests? Public Awareness? The fact there still are terrorists at large? Basically, I think it's far too early to make any call on the eventual outcome of the War on Terrorism. Is the fact that there have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11 proof that Bush has been successful, or just the status quo? Nobody really knows. Not you, not me, nor anybody else in this forum.

I'll freely admit that I disagree with Bush on many, many social issues, but I will vote for him because I'm glad to see a CIC that's willing to take a risk and do something when attacked. Clinton's measured responses after the embassy and Cole bombings did little but embolden terrorists. To his credit, he probably did not realize this at the time. No one in the US did, but 9/11 changed all of that. Bush, for all his faults, was willing to step up to bat and play ball. His war on terror might be highly misguided, overly ambitious, etc, but we don't really know yet. It's just too early to tell conclusively. Get back to me in 15 years.

Your points might be considered slightly valid if:

A.) The Taliban didn’t currently control 1/3 of Afghanistan due to the fact the United States has almost completely ignored the country since the Iraqi operation started.

B.) Iraq wasn’t far more of a terrorist breeding ground today then it was 2 years ago.

Its easy to act, but far harder to act properly. Bush has done the former, but most definitely not the latter.

 

[Alcibiades]

bold actions might be disastrous, but Clinton's measured subtle responses were disastrous to the point of 9/11 (to be fair, he was dogged by irrelevant sex scandals, and Bush Sr. or Bob Dole wouldn't have done that much more than Clinton IMO).

That said, Kerry has made it clear that his war on terrorism would be more of a law enforcement and diplomatic issue. While certainly those are important parts, maybe some people feel that "bold actions" should be the primary concern, as diplomacy can onlly go so far, and we have no control over eventual feelings by other nations.

So basically, we won't know till later which way we should approach terrorism and what worked and what didn't, the only thing we can do is choose what we think would be the best approach, and basically, we've got two choices, either of which could be disatrous, but one of which will certainly be more aggressive and bold, the other which promises to be strong, but will give more leverage to what other countries think as well.

 

[AstroLad]

drudgereport.com
I'm really surprised at how well MSNBC is doing, they surpassed CNN in rating recently for many of their shows, and now they are less than .4 million viewers from beating them on RNC viewing.

That said, it could also be because CNN's liberal/Democratic audience isn't tuning in this week

Seriously though, CNN is the really boring sometimes. They have some good panelists/guest sometimes, but Aaron Brown is boring, Larry King doesn't do interviews well, and pretty much their political crew is really not that insightful, pretty much they spout a theme or two going on and just talk about them in a simplified and repetative way. Fox News though has really awesome analysts (especially guys like Charles Krouthammer, Cici Conalley, Mara Liasson, Mort Kondrake, Fred Barnes, and Juan Williams) that really dig into issues and tell you what's happening "between the lines"/"underneath the surface" and are way more insightful. They also make sure to clarify anything that a "non-expert" audience might not understand, like clarifying what acroymns stand for and defining terms.

Let's break down your panel of awesome, ideologically diverse, totally respectable, and sometimes correctly-spelled analysts:

Charles Krauthammer- Republican shill writer for the Washington Post, whose columns include "Clinton Writ Small" and "Kerry Adrift." Blatantly misattributed a memo to Barbara Streisand, tearing into her in the witty, condescending manner of a true journalistic genius:

Until now, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) had generally struck people with previously compromised intellectual immune systems. Hence its prevalence in Hollywood. Barbra Streisand, for example, wrote her famous September 2002 memo to Dick Gephardt warning that the president was dragging us toward war to satisfy, among the usual corporate malefactors who “clearly have much to gain if we go to war against Iraq,” the logging industry—timber being a major industry in a country that is two-thirds desert.

The memo was, firstly, not written by Streisand, and secondly, the actual memo in question, written by Margarey Tabankin, stated merely:

How can we ignore the obvious influence on the Bush Administration of such special interests as the oil industry, the chemical companies, the logging industry, the defense contractors, the mining industry, and the automobile industry, just to name a few? Many of these industries, run by big Republican donors and insiders, clearly have much to gain if we go to war against Iraq.

That's just one example of the fucking terrible journalist he's become.

Cici Connolly- Republican shill. Al Gore stalker. Connolly accused Gore of lying about being the inspiration for the character of Oliver in the book Love Story. She was not swayed when the author, Eric Segal, said that Gore and roommate Tommy Lee Jones really were the inspiration for Oliver. She then misquoted Gore, saying that he had claimed to have discovered Love Canal (she apparently has a real obsession with "Love," and of course Gore). In actuality Gore was speaking to a school group in New Hampshire about the importance of political participation. He mentioned a schoolgirl in Toone, TN who brought a toxic waste problem there to his attention. When he decided to hold Congressional hearings on the matter, he looked for other places with similar problems and found Love Canal. He never claimed to have found the toxic waste there.
The school group he was talking to demanded that the Washington Post retract its misquote of the Vice President.

Mara Liasson- Emphatically denied ever being a Republican before being hired at Fox News, later confirmed that she was "at one time" a Republican. Took conservative philanthropy money as host of National Desk show, the link describing the show at National Desk has since been removed, but a mirror can be found here.
Had a spaz attack in response to comments made in 2002 by Congressmen Jim McDermott and David Bonior that President Bush would deceive the US in a runup to war with Iraq, stating:

These guys are a disgrace. Look, everybody knows it's 101, politics 101, that you don't go to an adversary country, an enemy country, and badmouth the United States, its policies and the president of the United States. I mean, these guys ought to, I don't know, resign.

Later stated that she "certainly shouldn't have said it."
Smeared Sidney Blumenthal, wrongly calling him a liar.

Mort Kondracke- Fifth-rate Republican shill who feels that the press needs to create more "positive" news from Iraq. More Kondracke stupidity here.

Fred Barnes- I'll let you take a wild guess as to his politics. Some of his lies are here.

Juan Williams- Properly described as a "Bush Apologista of some repute" (some Juan Williams stupidity there, too).

Wow, what an all-star panoply of analysts! It's no wonder you have such well-informed, fair and balanced 'thoughts'!

 

[Alcibiades]

Thing is, you can always find exceptions to when a particular journalist/politician is going to go against people with their leanings/people they agree with, but in general, unless you don't watch the panels on Fox News, you'll notice Williams, Liasson, and Conalley attacking the President's policies.

while they can be characterized as liberal/Democratic haters by people on the fringe of the political spectrum, when compared to Barnes, Krauthammer, Bill Salmon (conservative), and Kondrake (moderate, and he does attack the President on many issues, including Stem Cell research), Williams, Liasson, and Conalley are definitely left of center. I remember Mara always bringing up the abortion issue as something that always alerts white suburban women more than most other issues (this was back in 2000)...

edit: are there any moderates out there than don't really lean to much in either way that can attest to what I'm saying. Juan Williams and Brit Hume (conservative commentator on Sunday show) are always going at it.

 

[Socreges]

Oh, wow.

After the Daily Show's "Moment of Zen" tonight, they showed footage of cameras panning the audience at the RNC as they watched speeches. It was chilling. Smiling people, almost completely unmoving. They honestly looked like robots.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

bold actions might be disastrous, but Clinton's measured subtle responses were disastrous to the point of 9/11.

Would invading countries have prevented a dozen and a half guys from getting on an airplane? The increased regulations on things like what's allowed on an airplane and who's allowed in the country might've made a difference, but they're surely not bold.



I didn't see much of the convention tonight, but I haven't heard anyone mention one of the speakers from yesterday that stuck with me... I don't even remember his name. However, it was one of the minor speakers; enough so that the official convention page doesn't bother to have his transcript up. But he was talking about the Patriot Act. I'll paraphrase the part I disliked.

People have many misconceptions about the Patriot Act. Some people think that we can now search your house without telling you. This isn't true at all. We still have to get a warrant from a judge to search your house. We just feel it's important to not have to tell a suspected terrorist until later, so they can't hide evidence.

We also really don't care what books you check out of the library. However, it is important we can tell if someone has been reading books about making bombs.

It's like he was trying to correct misconceptions... but giving examples of how those misconceptions were actually correct.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Oh, wow.

After the Daily Show's "Moment of Zen" tonight, they showed footage of cameras panning the audience at the RNC as they watched speeches. It was chilling. Smiling people, almost completely unmoving. They honestly looked like robots.

Hahaha. I didn't catch that. However, it was probably when they were posing for the panoramic group picture? I thought it looked creepy live last night, too. Said to my friend that 'This looks like a piece of footage Michael Moore might use to show mesmerized Republicans."

 

[AstroLad]

Thing is, you can always find exceptions to when a particular journalist/politician is going to go against people with their leanings/people they agree with, but in general, unless you don't watch the panels on Fox News, you'll notice Williams, Liasson, and Conalley attacking the President's policies.

while they can be characterized as liberal/Democratic haters by people on the fringe of the political spectrum, when compared to Barnes, Krauthammer, Bill Salmon (conservative), and Kondrake (moderate, and he does attack the President on many issues, including Stem Cell research), Williams, Liasson, and Conalley are definitely left of center. I remember Mara always bringing up the abortion issue as something that always alerts white suburban women more than most other issues (this was back in 2000)...

edit: are there any moderates out there than don't really lean to much in either way that can attest to what I'm saying. Juan Williams and Brit Hume (conservative commentator on Sunday show) are always going at it.

Just because someone doesn't always echo the ridiculous, and to use your term in a proper sense, "fringe" right wing dogma espoused by most on Fox 'News,' does not make them "definitely left of center." Did you even bother reading anything I linked to or did you just think, "Conalley[sic] once didn't toe the party line 100%, OMG TOTAL LEFTIEE!"?

 

[Alcibiades]

I think that it was a lose-lose situation.

I also said: "Bush Sr. or Bob Dole wouldn't have done that much more than Clinton IMO"

thing is, even is George W. has decided it was time to do something, or if Clinton did, then when 9/11 did happen, it would have been blamed on our aggressive foreign policies.

Lose-Lose if you ask me.

Thing is, 9/11 happened with people here in the US (ignorant or not) not under the mindframe that anything the US was doing deserved such an attack from religous fanatics.

There is of course the Israeli issue, the troops-in-Holy-Land-of-Saudi-Arabia issue, the oil issue, the "we're infidels" issue. That said, people here don't necessarily think (although they may now be taking a more serious look) these grievances should have amounted to 9/11.

Now that 9/11 has happened, IMO we need a strong response militarily. Actually, I was against the war in Iraq (especially the sort of rush and not enough funding for it), but in the end, it wasn't really something I'd consider to help terrorists in the long-term.

I like the way Bush is supporting Israel and how strong he doesn't waffle on the fact that you have to fight abroad to fight Muslim extremists.

 

[Socreges]

However, it was probably when they were posing for the panoramic group picture?

No, there were a few panning shots and each one would last several seconds. They were watching a speech.

 

[Slurpy]

Oh, wow.

After the Daily Show's "Moment of Zen" tonight, they showed footage of cameras panning the audience at the RNC as they watched speeches. It was chilling. Smiling people, almost completely unmoving. They honestly looked like robots.

What do you expect? You can't be completely human and retain your sanity while listening to these speeches.

 

[Cloudy]

I'd hit the dark-haired Bush twin

PS: They sound dumb as bricks. They went to Yale?

 

[Alcibiades]

Wow, just saw Arnold's speech (was at a meeting so I missed the live one). He pretty much rocked the house. I think even Democrats would have gotten a kick out of some of his jokes, and he really had an inspiring immigrant story.

AstroLad:

some of the things you mentioned were mess-ups (that happen to all journalists/organizations, just look at the NYT keeping that black dude cause of diversity even though he made stuff up). I don't see blatant conservatism coming from them, not even hints that they are Republican supporters of any kind.

ok, let's looks at the charges against Mara:

Rounding out the panel [on FOX News Sunday] is its third-most-frequent pundit, Mara Liasson, who sits on the opposite side of the table from the conservative Barnes, implicitly identifying her as a liberal. But her liberalism consists of little more than being a woman who works for National Public Radio; she has proposed that "one of the roots of the problem with education today is feminism" (Talk of the Nation, 5/3/01); she declares that "Jesse Jackson gets away with a lot of things that other people don't" (Special Report, 6/21/00); she calls George W. Bush's reversal on carbon dioxide emissions "a small thing" (3/14/01), campaign finance reform "an issue that . . . only 200 people in America care about"(3/19/01) and slavery reparations "pretty much of a non-issue" (3/19/01).

if that's all they got, that's pretty weak. They are leaving out quite a bit of the quotes and doing paraphrasing themselves, how about giving more than a couple of words and putting what she said in context.

-so what if she proposes that feminism is having an effect on education.

-Jesse Jackson HAS gotten away with things other people don't.

-even Democrats admit reparations are a "non-issue" to most Americans. heck, I' could see people supporting reparations in the form of grants to black-concentrated communities and stuff like money for inner-city schools or something of the sort, but many Democratic officials aren't going to support it any more than Republican lawmakers.

ok, so Cici mentioned that Love Canal thing. I don't think she had anything to do with that. I heard about that "mini-scandal" long before I Cici became a Fox News columnist, but even a mistake by a journalist (nobody's perfect), doesn't make them conservative. In fact, have you seen her analyze the day's political events? She not only doesn't follow Repub's 100%, she rarely sides with them. Big difference.

about Juan Williams, he's said himself on Fox News that some liberal's think of him as a more moderate black commentator (he hasn't said they think him conservative that I know of). That said, he's always attacking the President, if he's truly a Republican, I doubt it's sincere.

 

[AssMan]

I don't know how these Republicans can respect Bush. All Bush has behind is back for campaigning is the fight for terrorism. Here's a clue:


Fuck that shit and worry about the economy in the U.S.

Do something about those 10 million damn immigrants costing us americans 10 billion dollars to take care of these wash backs.

Do something about health insurance.

And do something about school fundings.


The man is SO not articulate. Well, if Bush wins the 2k4 election, then it should be a shoe in for Hilary Clinton winning the 2k8 election.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Did I hear Arnold bring up Nixon during his speech, and the RNC crowd actually cheering?

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

IPS: They sound dumb as bricks. They went to Yale?

Bush also went to Yale. Blows your mind doesn't it.

 

[HAOHMARU]

Hillary Clinton in 2008? Hahaha....thats a good one. Are you here all week?

Anyway, I thought last nights speeches were ok...not as moving as the previous nights but they still helped Bush out imo.

Yeah go ahead and attack Bush's intelligence. Do you feel like your back is against a wall? I'd like to see the polls after the RNC...Bush could come out 8-10 points ahead so I can see why you are pissed off.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Yeah go ahead and attack Bush's intelligence. Do you feel like your back is against a wall? I'd like to see the polls after the RNC...Bush could come out 8-10 points ahead so I can see why you are pissed off.

Somebody is a little defensive. I just call it like I see it. If it wasn't for the Bush name/money I would have been suprised if Bush made it beyond elementary school. And Bush is against legacy college admissions? The sole reason he got to drink his way through 4 years of Yale... LOL. And yes, I'm pissed off over your assumptions of what will happen post-RNC, which amazingly, hasn't happened yet! Beyond pissed.

 

[Minotauro]

Yeah go ahead and attack Bush's intelligence. Do you feel like your back is against a wall? I'd like to see the polls after the RNC...Bush could come out 8-10 points ahead so I can see why you are pissed off.

You're confusing Bush's intelligence with the intelligence of the American people.

 

[alejob]

WTH?!

Arnolds speech was one of the most retarded speeches I've heard, he's all about putting on a show.

If the US would just mind its own businness then we wouldn't have all of this terrorist problems.

I didn't get what was the purpose of those "this ladys sons are in Iraq" and "the wounded soldier wants to go back and fight with his buddies". WTH those this have to do with a presidential election? Well thats politics I guess.

 

[Baron Aloha]

If the US would just mind its own businness then we wouldn't have all of this terrorist problems.

Thank you! There has been a msg during this entire convention that the terrorists hate us because of our way of life; because we are free. What a bunch of bull. Freedom has nothing to do with it. If it did they would be attacking Canada and a bunch of other free nations. They hate us because of our continued involvement in middle east affairs. End of story.

 

[Banjo Tango]

Wow, just saw Arnold's speech (was at a meeting so I missed the live one). He pretty much rocked the house. I think even Democrats would have gotten a kick out of some of his jokes, and he really had an inspiring immigrant story.

Arnold is amazing on many levels.

Edit - What is it that people really his speach? (transcript here). Is it his enthusiasm? I just don't get the appeal of punning with movie titles.

 

[Teddman]

I thought Arnold's speech was pretty good, as agenda-driving convention speeches go. It was all about tying in his immigrant success story with values that people identify with the American Dream, and then linking that to the Republican party. He got that across pretty skillfully.

The movie lines and jokes during his speeches don't really bother me, it's not like they are really any clumsier than the average attempt at humor in a political address. I think he strikes a pretty good balance between poking fun at himself but also invoking his movie star action-hero persona.

He's more entertaining than just about any politician these days, and at least he kept things short and sweet. How many other convention speeches kept your attention over their entire length?

 

[xsarien]

Banjo's link isn't working for me, is there a transcript on, say, cnn.com or something? I want to know the context of his Nixon-praising before I make fun of it.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

Banjo's link isn't working for me, is there a transcript on, say, cnn.com or something? I want to know the context of his Nixon-praising before I make fun of it.

Nixon is the reason Arnold is a Republican!


Hahahahaha

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=4593

I finally arrived here in 1968.I had empty pockets, but I was full of dreams. The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon and Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend who spoke German and English, translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism which is what I had just left. But then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free enterprise, getting government off your back, lowering taxes, and strengthening the military. Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air.

I said to my friend, "What party is he?" My friend said, "He's a Republican." I said, "Then I am a Republican!" And I've been a Republican ever since! And trust me, in my wife's family, that's no small achievement! I'm proud to belong to the party of Abraham Lincoln, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, the party of Ronald Reagan and the party of George W. Bush.

 

[AssMan]

Hillary Clinton in 2008? Hahaha....thats a good one. Are you here all week?

You think Dick Cheney can pull it off? HAHAHAHA! Dumb bitch.

 

[HAOHMARU]

HAHAHAHA! Dumb bitch.

Are you talking about Hilary Clinton? I agree.

And who said anything about Cheney running for President in 2008...not me, so don't put words in my mouth. You are the comedian here not me.

 

[AssMan]

Well who else can compete? Hilary would be VERY popular amongst americans (not to mention have her husband run alongside with her), and correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I heard Guilliani might run for presidency in 2008.