Renegade Public Forums
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Zell Miller's an ass.
Zell Miller's an ass. [message #113478] Tue, 07 September 2004 14:29 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
SuperFlyingEngi is currently offline  SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma:
General (1 Star)
msgtpain

He answered this statement in the opening 3 minutes of his speech. He stated very clearly that "A whole new generation of Miller's have been born since I stood in this same place over a decade ago." and then he further went on to state that "my family is more important than my party." Did he flip-flop? Maybe so. I'm not arguing that, but that doesn't make him a liar, his priorities have changed due to the change in his family and he now feels that GW Bush is the leader he feels most comfortable with protecting that family.


He's also saying that because of his rascist record back in the day. Look at j_ball's uninformed poster - Miller was one of the Democrats who voted No for the Civil Rights Act. Although that was maybe 40 years or so ago, so whatever. Let's not live in the past.

msgtpain

Since I am most certain that you were not watching his last speech when you were 2, I can only assume that this is simply a direct quote from the source you quoted.. Have you actually watched internet footage of that speech? or read the transcripts? Like I said, your hatred with Zell Miller seems more of just a regurgitation of the propaganda that a liberal reporter spewed in their column; I have a hard time believeing that you "share" these opinions based on actual events which you were a part of or even have heard for yourself and evaluated. If I am wrong here, then I'm sure you'll be explaining how he was "much less harsh" in 1992.


http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1205981/posts

It really is a lot nicer than his 2004 speech.

msgtpain

Please expound.. I'm having a hard time understanding this comment; unless you and I watched a completely different speech. Did he have a few harsh words? sure. But it was very clear that he was questioning "where the Democrats he used to know" have gone. I guess you could say he is "flip-flopping" again, as he is questioning the true colors of the party he grew up believing in and fighting for.


A few harsh words is an understatement. He got up and scowled and started ranting about Kerry. Things like this:

Zell Miller

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution.


...what does this mean? Wouldn't Republicans be closer to this way of thinking, like when Ronald Reagan called government the problem, not the solution? Oh well, it doesn't make any sense.

Zell Miller

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.


Yeah, and Bill Clinton didn't believe that when he told Richard Clarke to make a comprehensive plan for eliminating Al Qaeda.

Zell Miller

Together, Kennedy and Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that are now winning the war on terror.


This right here is such a lie. When they say he voted against all those weapons systems, he didn't vote against individual ones. He voted against the Defense Appropriations bill, which is the cumulative armed forces spending bill. Several times, the bill has had to have been vetoed because it has so much pork on it, like the Robert Bird Community College, or some random bridge, or something. The biggest piece of pork in there at one point was a retroactive tax fix that affected one company. Guess which company it was? Enron. Retroactively, Enron would have gotten back 250 million dollars in taxes. Bills like those need to be vetoed, and sent back to a committe to be re-built. Now, there were some weapons systems that come up on individual bills, like when the F-15 became out-dated, and needed to be cut, it would come up on a bill, and everyone would vote to cut funding to the plane because it was no longer needed. In the case of the F-15, the Defense Secretary who put it on the chopping block was none other than Dick Cheney. And Senator Kerry has supported over 6.4 trillion in defense spending over the years, more than twice the amount of all other countries in the world combined. How weak on defense can he be?

Zell Miller

U.S. forces armed with what? Spit balls?


Meta-furr.

Zell Miller

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.


Blah blah blah.

Zell Miller

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.


By golly, we never needed those 6.4 trillion in military spending over the years!

Zell Miller

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.


No he didn't. He came back and tried to stop the war. John Kerry was blaming our reasons for being in the war, never the troops. Saying he blamed the military is such a despicable thing to say.

Zell Miller

From John Kerry, they get a "yes/no/maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.


Here he goes saying John Kerry's leadership would only encourage terrorist attacks. By the way, today Cheney came out and said that if John Kerry is elected, there will immediately be a massive terrorist attack.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040907_956.html

Zell Miller

Faint-hearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.


There, he's calling John Kerry a sissy.

msgtpain

He did make this comment, and to be honest, I'm not sure what he was refering to, as I don't have any knowledge to the speech he is refering to, I will have to do some research on it.


Well, I'm not a great believer in Chris Matthews, because he rarely actually plays Hardball, but, I mean, who challenges someone to a duel?

msgtpain

This is one of those "I'm going to make a fenceline comment that can't get me in trouble either way." John Kerry has made it absolutely factual that the president abused the power that was given to him, then out of the other side of his mouth, he states that he would never expect the president to do anything but act in the way that they feel that they need to. It's a circular argument.. Either you believe that the President has and had the authority to do what he did, or you argue that he acted irresponsibly and abused his power. All I hear is that "I want the ability to make those decisions myself also if I'm president" .. so what's his beef with Bush.


That Bush made bad decisions. John Kerry saying he will exert presidential power to make sure the country is safe doesn't mean that he can't say someone else wielded the aforementioned power irresponsibly.

msgtpain

I never heard him say this at all.. and to me, his speech seemed honest and from the heart.. He was pissed off that his brother Democrats are acting the way they are..


Alright, i exagerrated the baby killer part, but still, look at what he said about John Kerry's record on defense. It's all a lie.

msgtpain

which is why he took the time out of his life to help the people at the RNC understand what his opinion was about "The other side".. He believes that the Republicans have a better candidate, and he gave 100 reasons why.


I count 6 reasons. All at the very end of his speech. Most of it was dedicated to attacking John Kerry.

msgtpain

If someone came to a democratic convention and started spewing about how Bush and Cheny were a bunch of 'ol boys club Oil rednecks that think they can do whatever they want, and make their buddies richer, you wouldn't be standing up cheering? I find that laughable, actually.


Not if they were all scowly and slanderous, I wouldn't be cheering. Speeches to cheer for are ones like Al Sharpton's speech at the DNC this year. That was a great speech.

EDIT: Grammatical Errors.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)

The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: 9/11: The Pantagon...
Next Topic: Kerry is a saint?
Goto Forum:
  

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Mon Feb 03 22:03:56 MST 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01309 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 420.69.
Copyright ©2001-2023 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software