27
   

The Republican Convention kicks off Tuesday 9-2-08

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:05 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Our good friends on the Left are missing the point here I think. McCain's laundry list is to keep taxes low, get government off the back/out of the way of those who generate prosperity, jobs, wealth, new innovations, while assigning government its Constitutional responsibilities and holding it accountable to perform them. That is the difference between Conservatism and making people more and more dependent on government largesse.


Once again, these are goals, not plans. It's not enough to say 'jobs' and 'new innovations.' HOW will he make more jobs? How will he encourage new innovations? Those details are important if he wants to convince people to vote for him.

And it's the same thing your side knocks Obama for, so don't pretend that we're asking for something that it unusual.

One part is crystal clear tho -

Quote:
get government off the back/out of the way of those who generate prosperity


= cut taxes for the rich. Yeah, that's a real change from the typical Republican line, whew, what a Maverick McCain will be! Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:08 am
@Cycloptichorn,
You should put this kind of effort into deciphering Obama's plan...
wait, Obama really doesn't have a plan - he just hopes change will come.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:10 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
The difference is that McCain is saying that the President and Republicans in Congress didn't get it done. He's saying he will.


Laughing Laughing Laughing

So McCain is promising the same things Bush has been promising, but because McCain is also promising to do the things he is promising - whereas Bush has merely been promising to do those things and then didn't get them done - McCain should be elected?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:11 am
As the Convention is now over and this thread has probably run most of its useful life, lets move the bipartisan discussion HERE: http://able2know.org/topic/121961-1
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:12 am
@FreeDuck,
I listened to Obama's speech, which is research don't you think. His laundry list were goals, not plans, but his plans are not practical in my opinion. Example, one of his goals or promises was to get us off of Middle East oil in 10 years. Yes, the Repubs have the same goal, but not in 10 years, and if Obama specific plans don's support being able to accomplish the goal in his laundry list, then my conclusion is McCain is a better choice, especially with Palin who clearly understands the need for practical energy solutions it appears.

Energy is one good example that illustrates my point pretty well, as explained in the above. It doesn't take a rocket scientist ot figure it out. A hockey mom has, why is it so difficult for Obama? Probably because he lives in a bubble, not in the real world, just a guess.

Again, McCain was not my first choice, but he is the best choice we have now.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:32 am
@okie,
okie wrote:


Again, McCain was not my first choice, but he is the best choice we have now.


+1 !!
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  4  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:07 am
@Cycloptichorn,
McCain, the self-appointed agent of change, set forth a goal of REVERTING to the past. He said, "The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics." McCain then recited the basics of Reaganomics. It's the old trickle-down economic plan that involves the wealthiest families and corporate America splashing around in a big pool of wealth with the hope that maybe a drop or two from their splashing prosperity will fall upon the working people. But, if people recall, Reagan's trickle-down economic plan was an utter failure and he had to RAISE taxes--more than once!
H2O MAN
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:12 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

McCain, the self-appointed agent of change



That reminds me of another self-appointed savior of the world...
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 11:25 am
@H2O MAN,
I’m hoping that if John McCain is elected president, he’ll establish an official office of Acceptable Causes Larger Than Oneself. Clearly, serving a Cause Larger Than Oneself is important to the former naval aviator and P.O.W., and it’s undeniably worthy, one of those “values” most of us sincerely hope to instill in our children. Less just “doing well,” more trying to “do good.”

But after watching the Republican convention for the past two nights, I’m deeply confused about which causes count as worthy, as large enough to be considered larger than self. Clearly serving in the military counts. It’s both a cause larger than self"and permanent proof of one’s patriotism. As the daughter of another naval aviator who served two tours in Vietnam, I’m all for that. Volunteering to put yourself in harm’s way to protect your country"and the ideals for which it stands"is both honorable and by every measure a selfless act. So check military service

After watching Sarah Palin’s speech last night, it’s clear that working as a community organizer does not count as a Cause Larger Than Oneself. Even if you forgo a high paying job on, say, Wall Street, to help working-class families devastated by the closing of steel mills in their communities, it’s really just a selfish attempt to avoid the kind of accountability that comes with, say, running a beer distributorship.

Hockey moms? Check. Moose Hunters? Check. Small-town city council members and mayors, as well as the governors of small (preferably rural and Western) states? Check. United States senators? As long as they’re not from Illinois or Delaware, check.

Volunteering for international aid agencies that help poor children in countries like Bangladesh and Rwanda clearly counts. But it’s unclear whether a paid job with such agencies would also be acceptable. Obviously, if it was affiliated with the U.N., this would be horrible and not a qualified cause. And the jury is out if the poor children are American. I suppose there might be a way to qualify the cause"as long as it wouldn’t require one to be a community organizer.

And what about working to bring change to the American political system? If the candidate, the so-called agent of change, were a military veteran, roger that. But an erstwhile community organizer? So not.

There are so many “causes” in between, somewhere on the continuum from veteran/POW/beer distributor, to community organizer, that it all gets pretty confusing. I’m just hoping that the McCain/Palin administration’s new office of Acceptable Causes Larger Than Oneself will help sort all this out."
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/causes-for-confusion-at-the-rnc.html#entry-more
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 12:32 pm
@Debra Law,
But you have to appreciate how elegant it is to call oneself "the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan". The three had almost nothing in common, so the slogan can be used for any policy McCain might end up pursuing. Talk about recycling!

(Unfortunately, they got the wrong Roosevelt. FDR, the wannabe court packer and jailer of 100,000 innocent Americans, would fit in well with current Republican executives.)
cicerone imposter
 
  4  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 02:26 pm
@Debra Law,
We must forgive McCain for not remembering history; his senility gets worse every day.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 02:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
We must support McCain & Palin as they make history.
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 03:20 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

McCain, the self-appointed agent of change



That reminds me of another self-appointed savior of the world...


jesus ?
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  0  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 03:21 pm
@H2O MAN,
We must support McCain & Palin as they make history.
I respectfully bring to your kind attention sir.
Except some10 percent at the most, the whole humanity eagerly watching your costly dram.
By electing these gangs after the last 8 years animalfarm rule which had shattered the image of USA, theCountry will be alone without a sympatheizer
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 05:28 pm
I thought about posting this on the election thread, but it is more appropriate here:

A week ago from yesterday, Barack Obama had the highest rated acceptance speech in history re television viewers. Sarah Palin's speech netted right at 1 million less than Obama but was still impression. Biden drew a distant third.

But look at this:

Quote:
September 05, 2008
Breaking: McCain beats Obama by 500,000
John McCain has won the ratings race.


The Republican nominee beat Democratic challenger Barack Obama's record-setting convention speech viewership by 500,000.

McCain's address at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night was seen by about 38.9 million viewers, according to Nielsen Media Research. Obama received 38.4 million.

That means McCain's speech is now the most-watched in convention history -- 41% higher than President Bush's acceptance speech four years ago, and 1% higher than Obama's address last week.

Looking at the speech's audience demographics, McCain drew significantly more male viewers than Obama (16.2 million). McCain also drew more white viewers (32.2 million), while Obama was seen by more African Americans.

Though anticipation has been running high for McCain's address, the speech also may have benefited slightly from a strong NFL lead-in on NBC. Initially Republicans feared McCain might have to compete with the game for viewers' attention. But the NFL match started early, then put about 13.6 million viewers on the doorstep of NBC's 10 p.m. coverage of McCain's speech.

Still, NBC has aired the most-watched convention coverage among the broadcaster nets all week, and its numbers compared to rivals were not much different than on previous nights. In other words: the game may have helped, but it wasn't a major factor in McCain's massive viewership (even with the NBC receiving an NFL lead-in, Fox News is expected to win the network-by-network breakdown).

Also, with interest in his running mate Sarah Palin spiking viewership for the RNC on Wednesday, the convention was able to gain some significant momentum after losing its first night to Hurricane Gustav coverage. McCain received 5% more viewers than his running mate.

FOX NEWS: 9.1MILLION
NBC: 8.7 MILLION
ABC: 6.0 MILLION
CBS: 5.3 MILLION
CNN: 4.8 MILLION
MSNBC: 2.5 MILLION

(from 10 p.m. to 11:15 p.m.)
http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/09/mccain-rating-1.html


I suspect the overwhelming and unexpected reaction to Sarah Palin on Wednesday night had something to do with this. But impressive numbers for the 'old guy' just the same.

Meanwhile everybody join us here as the beat goes on:
http://able2know.org/topic/121805-1

Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 05:43 pm
Try again with the right link this time - everybody who wants to discuss, dissect, spin, or critique the campaign and impending US election, please join us here:
http://able2know.org/topic/121961-1
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 05:46 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Mr. Obama’s speech, which he gave in that hour, reached 8.1 million viewers on CNN, 6.6 million on ABC, 6.1 million on NBC, 4.7 million on CBS, 4.2 million on Fox News, and 4.1 million on MSNBC.


Interesting that CNN had 8.1 million viewers for Obama and 4.8 for McCain while Fox was almost the reverse 4.2 to 9.1

It appears that more partisans who had already made up their minds watched each speech. Either that or 4.5 million viewers decided to switch from CNN to Fox.

Of course the real key is the increase on NBC which had a football game leading into McCain's speech. That's 2 million extra viewers on NBC.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 08:32 pm
Fox was getting creamed in the ratings because their commentators were doing way too much talking and we weren't able to see what was going on in the convention, much less hear it. That was true through most of the Dem Convention and the first half of the GOP convention. So a lot of us switched to CNN or other that was allowing us to experience more of the actual convention. Fox finally figured that out I guess, because the last two nights they did a much better job of shutting up and just showing the convention and they quickly regained their top market share.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 08:40 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

But you have to appreciate how elegant it is to call oneself "the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan". The three had almost nothing in common, so the slogan can be used for any policy McCain might end up pursuing. Talk about recycling!

(Unfortunately, they got the wrong Roosevelt. FDR, the wannabe court packer and jailer of 100,000 innocent Americans, would fit in well with current Republican executives.)

Uh, Thomas, FDR was appropriately a Democrat, you can't change it. And its funny too that Teddy Roosevelt was the guy that started a bunch of national parks and appreciated nature. Its ironic that alot of the things that Democrats supposedly care about, it was in fact Republicans originally that were the agents of positive change within those issues. And I doubt you can speak with great authority to declare the three had nothing in common, which is a crock in my opinion. I have read Lincoln's writings, and I know what Reagan was about, and I think they shared many common values and beliefs.

And even Martin Luther King was a Republican, and believe me, Obama is no Martin Luther King. Interesting too, one of Bill Clintons mentors, William Fullbright, was one of the biggest segregationists ever. The Clintons are good examples of opportunists using race as a wedge with the Democratic Party to further their political careers, which has often been the case for many politicians in the Democratic Party.

This current flare up with race, in regard to Obama, and now with Palin, in regard to gender, amply demonstrates the fact that racial and gender politics is not really about race and gender, but about socialism and one worldism. All the feminists opposing Palin proves that. They don't really care about women, they care about their politics. These things are being used to further socialism and the one world view, which is what the Democrats are seeking to further, and the Republicans are attempting to stem the tide, or the pendulum. At least that is my opinion about what is going on.
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 10:36 pm
@okie,
More importantly, issues of race and gender with the liberal left is to defend and uplift LIBERAL minorities and women. There is no interest whatsoever in furthering the cause of a conservative black person or woman and any who presume to elevate themselves in stature will invariably be savaged.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 01:09:29