Dr.Worthless Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 Lets have everyone overall opinions of the Democratic National Convention. I know we have ALOT of non-US posters, so I don't know if you all watched the convention or not. If that be the case, I doubt this thread goes much of anywhere
MonteZuma Posted July 30, 2004 Report Posted July 30, 2004 I've heard a bit about it. Apparently its a big deal - but I can't understand why. People are whining that it hasn't had much publicity - but why should it? Shouldn't people make up their minds based on policies rather than hype?
Vile Requiem Posted July 31, 2004 Report Posted July 31, 2004 Most of it was -*BAD WORD*-, but Kerry's speech was kick!@#$%^&*.To think, someone can write an intelligent articulate speech all by themselves Must have been good, according to Zogby Kerry's leading most every category in the polls now, and Bush's approval ratings are down in the 30's.
Dr.Worthless Posted July 31, 2004 Author Report Posted July 31, 2004 Most of it was -*BAD WORD*-, but Kerry's speech was kick!@#$%^&*.To think, someone can write an intelligent articulate speech all by themselves I agree, kerry's speech was very well put together. The delivery wasn't up to par though. I think Clinton stole the show, for alittle bit he actually had me thinking I was going to vote democrat this year, then I remember he wasnt the candidate running. *boggle* Where's the detail for plans? One of Kerry's #1 gripes is that no one knows his plans to fix the things he says he will. He promised higher minimum wages, tax cuts to the middle class, fixing the Iraq situation, working on womans rights, better prescription health plan, fixing healthcare, fixing social security, 3 ASSS and booze on friday nights. Ok, so the last was a lie, but pretty much EVERYTHING that's going bad right now kerry said he'd fix, yet gave us no information on HOW he'd go about doing this. Just seems to me Kerry's promising everything to everyone.
Vile Requiem Posted July 31, 2004 Report Posted July 31, 2004 Higher Minimum Wages is EZ, all you have to do is legislate it and the companies have to do it. No Govt Money Req, except when they themselves have minimum wage employees. He DID give a plan for Iraq - Extending a coalition to do it, which people will be more amicable to do it once Cowboy is out of office. More Women then Men vote for Kerry historically, so he's gotta be doing something right there The big revelation about Healthcare so far is Kerry WILL open up compe!@#$%^&*ion from foreign drugs such as Canadian or Taiwan (they have a rather good AIDS -*BAD WORD*-tail for a dollar a day, cheap as all -*BAD WORD*- compared to US prices, and apparently it works). This in turn lowers US drug prices by proxy. The Tax Cuts is what I need more info on myself, but in the speech Kerry alluded to the fact that Govt under Bush is spending ungodly amounts of cash on things like Iraq, eliminating these expendatures will save -*BAD WORD*-loads of money that can go into such a tax cut. Still doesn't make much sense to me though, but then again neither did Bush's tax cuts. He doesn't even seem like a welfare -*BAD WORD*-, saying something to the effect of "If people work hard, they will have enough cash to live unlike today" Just seems more workable then one might think, except the tax cuts bit. But then again NOBODY IN THE HISTORY OF POLITICS EVER GOT ELECTED SAYING THEY'D RAISE TAXES
Dr.Worthless Posted July 31, 2004 Author Report Posted July 31, 2004 He DID give a plan for Iraq - Extending a coalition to do it, which people will be more amicable to do it once Cowboy is out of office. If kerry gets elected I'll be curious to see the UN's response to him. I suspect it will be better, but I'll also have to wait and see just how much power Kerry ceades to the UN, because make no mistake its going to take some major major major -*BAD WORD*- kissing to get chirac and others back on the US side (If they ever were)
MasterDrake Posted July 31, 2004 Report Posted July 31, 2004 Well it really changed my view of him I like the plan he has told us about and I hope if he is elected they are fulfilled now I am just wait to see what bush is going to say but for the moment I am voting for kerry, and about the iraq thing he said he will be increasing or forces by 40000 for homeland security purposes and continuing to work with the forces leaders to improve or technology because we are literally using 50's technology still but its getting better slowly.
Dr.Worthless Posted July 31, 2004 Author Report Posted July 31, 2004 and about the iraq thing he said he will be increasing or forces by 40000 for homeland security purposes and continuing to work with the forces leaders to improve or technology because we are literally using 50's technology still but its getting better slowly. Huh? If you're saying that the military is using the same things it used in the 50's, you need to find who told you that and slap them.
MasterDrake Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 Points to the little WOOOT NAVY under his name, I don't put that there for no reason
Dr.Worthless Posted August 1, 2004 Author Report Posted August 1, 2004 Sorry, nuclear class submarines have made huge jumps technological wise from the 50's. Along with carriers, especially the computerized AA gunnery now installed (which are extremely bad!@#$%^&*.) A whole new ship class is slated to debut in 2012? Not sure of the year. The new ships are slated to make use of rail gun technology. In the army, can you say M1 Abrams? The most dominant land weapon in the history of warfare. The airforce has stealth technology, bigger, better, more accurate weaponry, faster, better airplanes (f15). Lockheed is also working on the joint strike fighter, which is to make its debut in the coming years. Sorry, Good try though, the military the united states has today, technologically speaking, makes the armed forces we had in the 50's look stoneage.
MasterDrake Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 ok sorry I forgot you did my job why don't you come take this 200 pound battery charger off my hands since u can give a tiny one that isn't from the 50s that would be great
Dr.Worthless Posted August 1, 2004 Author Report Posted August 1, 2004 ok sorry I forgot you did my job why don't you come take this 200 pound battery charger off my hands since u can give a tiny one that isn't from the 50s that would be great Atleast I know im getting my taxpayers money worth, go hump that 200 pound charger around some more.
Aileron Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 Well, Bush was good with military technology - he stopped the Crusader project. The Crusader, if you recall, was this huge artillery piece they propossed adding to the armed forces. The problems with it was that the design was so big, you couldn't airlift it and you had to be picky where you set the goliath up. Definetely, that type of weapon is a Cold War idea proposed for the War on Terror. We need agile quick artillery, that can be set up wherever we want quickly with the aid of transport helicopters. We need to be researching LIGHT artillery, not heavy unwieldy stuff. Bush was smart enough to realise this. The point is when discussing weapons, you have to ask youself if the weapon would be good in a Cold War, or it would be good to attack a cell of terrorists.
Aileron Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 Sorry folks, but I seriously doubt Kerry will be elected. If I was the Democratic leadership, I would probably want to put all effort to putting Hillary Clinton in the White House in 2008. If Kerry gets elected in 2004, this cannot happen. Thus, I think what the Democrats are going to do is not fund Kerry's election, but put more funding in all the Democratic congressional races. They will want to publicize a lot of anti-Bush messages to fake out the Republicans into focusing money on the presidential election. The Democrats don't really want Bush out of the White house, they want the Republicans out of Congress.
Vile Requiem Posted August 1, 2004 Report Posted August 1, 2004 The Democrats don't really want Bush out of the White house, they want the Republicans out of Congress.Says a Republican? Not only has Kerry now come to a tie with Bush in favorability in the South (55% for both), the Kerry-Edwards ticket has pulled ahead, 48% to 46% in the South. http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=849 So let's see, Kerry's closing in on southern states, and you say he has no chance? I'll laugh irl now
MasterDrake Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Ok worthless I not necessarily disagreeing with you yes things are getting better technology wise but not as fast as you think the newest jet the us navy has yes was developed this year but it was also made from a 1960 jet which seems to be a lot of jets built in the 60’s and 70’s. The newest jet the US Navy has is named the Super Hornet just so ya know. Now our main systems on the ships and land not talking about weapon systems are dated between 1950 and 1960 all the new carriers your talking about are still implementing this older technology all they are upgrading or the capacity of people and weaponry available I believe the new carriers are suppose to hold 7000 people and looks something like the stealth ship from James bond or that’s what I have seen for the pictures I was given. Anyways the air force builds a lot smarter then the navy but we are starting to catch on basically they build everything they want first then they ask for more money to build what they need and the gov has no choice and has to give them it. Note the reason I should of joined the air force L umm that’s about it for now
Aileron Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Vile, first let me point out that all polls are -*BAD WORD*-. There are about 50 seperate ways the pollsters could get what they want out of the results, and they want results that sell. I'd also like to point out that its very early in the season. The Democrats have rallied. The Republicans have just started to collect money. However, I will admit Kerry would have a chance, if the Democratic party put major effort putting him in. However, their money would be better spent on their congressional candidates. The Democrates are currently out of government. They only have a slim majority in the Senate, and that was due to foul play. They want in badly. The best move they can make is to concentrate their efforts on gaining one of the bodies. Kerry is not as popular among democrats as Bush is among republicans. Remember, this time last year, the democrats didn't even have a leader. The democrats have a much better chance among the congressional races. Republicans love Bush, but feel only a slight liking of their congressional candidates.
talion Posted August 9, 2004 Report Posted August 9, 2004 I didn't see Kerry's speech, I Was at work that night. I did see the Clintons and Carter, and Gore. IF I were American and was undecided I'd be ready to vote for Clinton, but as has been said he's not the candidate
Recommended Posts