Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jul 31, 2004.
The second story sounds -- unfortunately -- typical for Bush's handlers. But that first one, that's a new one on me. That is just wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. So what's next? When we're in the presence of Cheney, will we be required to give him a stiff-armed salute? Or just genuflect and kiss his ring?
Requiring somebody to endorse Bush? Please!
I wouldn't sign something like that to see Kerry speak. And I do endorse him.
there are at least several instances in the history of this country of people being forced to sign loyalty oaths (or face consequences if they didn't). imo, none of those instances are pretty, and this "bush endorsement pledge" is frighteningly close.
Is any of this new? The Bush administration uses the excuse of security to justify discrimination and partisanship. I'm not surprised at all, but sickened nonetheless.
Just shows why the RNC needs to go, just not Bush. They are trying to take over the nation as the single Party. By what ever means they have.
All because of the money involved. Just look at the way the political parties dress, the clothes they wear, and their quality of life. For those that have been through "anti-union" training; you know what I mean. It is time to dump the RNC (in particular) and the DNC, to bring parties that will represent the people.
When was the last time he said anything worth listening to?
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is King...
Endorse Bush? That is crazy talk. You can't force someone to endorse Bush or Kerry for that matter! Or is that just a way of controlling what gets out of the room (speech wise) so that no one really knows what was said.
There are some that take "pledges" to be very serious. Both on the civil and religious level. I do not fault those that took it they way they did.
It sounds insane to me: since when do you make up your mind BEFORE you hear someone speak? Why would you need to listen?
Agreed, but when it comes to US politics and pledges, we are different breed.
Evidently. Care to expand? This Brit doesn't get it.
In Virginia we have open primaries, but a few years ago they tried to get us to pledge that when we were voting in the primary, that we we were voting for the party that we had an interest in. I looked tat as a choice between my God and I, not some f**king party.
It looks like the Bush campaign has come up with a lie worth telling.
Imagine this scenario: someone signs the paper to attend Cheney's speech, then when it's over, they stand up and shout, "I signed the pledge, but after I heard what Mr. Cheney had to say today, I renounce it!"
LOL... that didn't even occur to me. I guess it is just another example of stupid Americans. (Making up your mind before hearing the speaker).
*THAT* would be great!
Because people are not generally interested in hearing, analysing and digesting new facts and points of view.
They don't want to independently make up their minds, they want to be told why they've already had their minds made up for them.
But you're not supposed to assume that when planning an event!
In any case, a polarized election like this one with a critical swing vote means that this sort of policy will only hurt the Bu****es. I don't think swing voters going out to hear the candidates and make a decision will be too pleased with the prospect of having to "pledge the allegiance" to one of the candidates before they are ready to do so.
Either Jeff Greenfield or Bill Schneider has a "Political Play of the Week." This Bush campaign decision is my "Political Foul of the Week."
Weird... Cheney is coming here Wednesday to speak, and I got tickets to see him. The tickets were completely free, and all I had to do was show them my license and then they wrote my name on the back of the ticket. No ridiculous pledges (that seems so ridiculous I almost question if the story is true).
As for the race thing, they probably wanted to know what his race is so that when he showed up that could be a partial verification that it was really him. I know, that's stretching it a bit, but I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here of what otherwise sounds like a stupid request
AP tends to be pretty accurate.
Yeah...a stretch...That's crap and you know it. This is one of those things for which you really shouldn't try to apologize, as a Bush supporter. Whatever you think about the rest of the political scene, you can agree that this is extremely questionable. The problem isn't that the request is stupid as much as that it has an apparent racial bias: Why would you want to know someone's race if you weren't going to make judgments based on it? And why would knowing a person's race confirm the person's identity? There are many thousands of 'brownies' in the United States--knowing that someone is Indian isn't really going to help you ensure that that's who shows up...That's why we have things like IDs. You know, when you go to a limited-admissions event, they don't just give you a call beforehand and ask your race, so they can confirm your identity when you get there. No, the explanation is so ridiculous that it is inviable.
There's no doubt here, and thus no benefit of it...Of course, how much benefit of the doubt do we really need to cut the Bush administration before we figure out that it's not up to the job? I watch his cronies transform this country into everything it shouldn't be and I just want to know when people will wake up enough to see that he's not really one of the good guys.
13 million bucks for a convention??? and who paid for it? oh that's right, taxpayers!
The impression I got from the story is that they were specifically concerned about the people calling from the America Coming Together (ACT) number -- not all attendees. The story variously says "some people" or "several people", but only cites two specific people who were asked to sign a pledge. I think it's pretty clear that this was targeted specifically at some people that they expected to try to cause a disruption.
To provide a little context, according to Disinfopedia.org, America Coming Together is a political action committee funded by George Soros, the man who brought you MoveOn.org.
George Soros didn't "bring us" Moveon.org, it brought itself. The organization existed, and was prominent, long before Soros decided to give them some of his money.
Yes, you are correct; my bad.