% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Xinyuan Real Estate Co., Ltd. Message Board

  • hmmm26 hmmm26 Aug 28, 2012 8:48 PM Flag

    Republican National Convention Discussion Thread

    This thread's experimental. I'm hoping people can rise above party affiliation to give viewpoints or opinions or whatever that don't degenerate into just the "my side rocks; your side stinks." As a political moderate, I feel like an animal on the endangered species list.

    1. For example, I just watched Ohio Governor Kasich's speech, and I thought it was excellent. Agree? Disagree? Why?

    2. Also, does anybody know if the conventions' order (the party out of power always goes first, the President's party always second) is dictated by statute? I doubt it is, so why doesn't the party out of power try harder to go second?

    Isn't going second always better?

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • The combined Newt Gingrich and his wife speech was a crummy, crummy speech -- IMO, the least effective speech of the entire convention.

      It was so dull that the delegates themselves barely applauded, despite the fact that the topic of the speech was a tribute to President Reagan, republican royalty if ever there was any.

    • Last night my wife opened the office door to ask if I wanted anything. After I said no, she glanced at the TV and said "ugh, Nazi-fest".

      An hour or so later I walked down the hallway, put my arm up in a Nazi salute and goosestepped into her view saying "Seig, heil! I've been converted!", which earned me a laugh and a pillow thrown at my head.

      Not everyone in my family shares my moderate political outlook.

    • No we're talking about a speech which you said was excellent and which you also said was devoid of policy statements. I don't believe a speech can be excellent if it's devoid of policy content.

    • Any opinions on night 2 speeches?

      I thought Paul Ryan's speech was excellent, and the best of the night.

    • That's an excellent (and terrifying) point.

      If Nixon had become President in 1960, would the Cuban Missile Crisis still have ended short of WWIII? We'll never know, but I fear the worst.

      Twice during those 12 days JFK had to overrule the military taking stronger measures: after our U2 plane got shot down, and when he moved the invasion date back a day to give the RFK/Dobrynin negotiations one last chance to find a solution. I'm not sure President Nixon would've made the same choices, and those 24 hours saved the world.

      The reason I'm not sure Nixon would've worked so hard for a peaceful solution is because, based on the information we had then, it looked like there was an easy military solution: invade the island, overwhelm the Cuban army, arrest Castro, problem solved.

      But it turns out that would've been BAD, because there's a bunch of terrifying stuff we didn't find out about until the 1990's:

      1. the Russians had 80 tactical (battlefield) nukes ready to go in Cuba, so our invasion of the island -- the one JFK pushed back 24 hours -- would have failed with massive US loss of life. The Russian commanders had already been greenlighted by Moscow to use those nukes in the case of an invasion. Terrifying.

      2. With the Russians nuking our guys and our fleet, JFK would've been forced to launch a nuclear counterstrike. Probably not much of the island of Cuba would've survived.

      3. Cuba had a mutual assistance military pact with the Soviet Union, so once that island was glowing, Kruschev would've been forced to counter our Cuba attack by moving against us somewhere, almost certainly by taking what was then West Berlin.

      4. West Berlin was protected by our NATO pledge; violating it would've meant we were obligated to attack East Germany to get it back. That's NATO vs. Warsaw Pact, the US vs. the Soviets, and that would've been Ballgame.

      Even today that sends shivers down my spine.

      As Pink Floyd's Roger Waters once wrote: That ain't 'Au Revoir'. It's 'Goodbye'.

      [au revoir = 'until we meet again'].

    • FWIW, I thought Chris Christie gave the best speech of the night last night. He's a really easy guy to like.

      He seems like a rising superstar in the Republican party.

      Other opinions on good/bad speeches?

      • 2 Replies to hmmm26
      • Christie is a big fat buffoon. He likes the rich a lot more than working people. I also don't understand how he and other Republicants are regarded as fiscal conservatives when they favor huge tax cuts for the wealthy.
        Both parties are to blame for the deficit??? Really then how come we had a huge surplus when Clinton left office and Obama inherited a huge deficit??

      • I think you are right on both counts...he seems to be a likeable guy who is a rising star. I really don't know much else about him, though. I guess I may have 4, or maybe 8 years to find out more.

        Didn't actually get to watch all of any speech, so I can't comment on the speeches. I think most of those speeches are pretty much rhetoric anyway.

        Can you tell I am not pleased with our current politicians?

    • Heh, yeppers.

    • As much as things change, some things still haven't changed...


    • Yep, that's true.

      Our mayor back then was Richard Daley and Chicago's democratic machine was all-powerful. In their eyes, nothing should prevent you from voting for Daley, not even being dead.

      They'd keep people's voting registration active after they'd died, so on election days in Chicago, many, many thousands (tens of thousands? we'll never know) of ghosts rose from the dead to vote -- naturally, 100% for Daley (and by default, other democrats).

      Talk about civic Spirit!

    • I'm for getting rid of multiple terms. Give them one shot at it, be it 4 years or 6 years, whatever, but get rid of the re-elections this way they don't spend 2 years of their terms campaigning.

    • View More Messages
6.15+0.22(+3.71%)Aug 25 4:02 PMEDT