Forums | MacLife

Agreed.

I'll search for a link.  I heard it on the radio this afternoon.

It looks likely:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/200 … -8542r.htm

If they do that... Well, it'd be just wrong.

Err, since when did Madison Square Garden become the WTC?
Christ, you all act like political conventions were unheard of in New York.
frankly, I don't remember what the usual month is so I'll give you crass for holding it in Sept.

Oh, and this will be the first time the Republicans have held a national convention in New York City. The Democrats have done so five times.

How long is this guy going to milk such a spectacular failure? On September 11th, 2001, over 3,000 Americans died while he was President. That's not something he should use to invoke support. Point the fingers where you want, he failed to protect those people.

The president (of either political persuasion) does not decide where or when to hold a convention. 

Perhaps if Clinton had acted upon Bin Laden during his eight years as Commander in Chief the attacks would not have happened.  Sudan offered him and a huge amount of data about his terrorist network up to us, and the administration did nothing.  Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.  They saw terrorist attacks on our soil as investigations for the FBI, not the CIA.  They had all hearings about terrorism held in grand juries, the testimony of which is not available for the perusal of our intelligence agencies. 

[deep, deep sarcasm]Yeah.  You're right.  It's all Bush's fault.[/deep, deep sarcasm]

And for every incorrect attribution there will be clarification.  I guess it just depends upon your point of view.

Jaligard attributed the deaths of 3,000 people to the current president.  I clarified that this might not have happened if the prior president had acted in an appropriate manner that these people need not have died.

Clearer for you?

Must I connect the dots for you?  Have you not read the thread?  Just in case you have not, I will give you a brief synopsis. 

Republican convention is brought up.  Location of convention is brought up.  Jaligard claims that the president (who, according to him, decides where the convention will be held) is using the deaths of 3,000 people, which he failed to prevent (another way of saying he caused) to promote the convention, and therefore, his reelection bid.

I refuted the bit about the president being the one who picks the location of the convention.  Then I proposed that if the prior president had acted in a manner befitting the Commander in Chief these 3,000 deaths might not have occurred. 

Jaligard opened the door.  I walked through it.  Is that crystal clear for you?

Republican convention is brought up.  Location of convention is brought up.  Jaligard claims that the president (who, according to him, decides where the convention will be held) is using the deaths of 3,000 people, which he failed to prevent (another way of saying he caused) to promote the convention, and therefore, his reelection bid.

I refuted the bit about the president being the one who picks the location of the convention.  Then I proposed that if the prior president had acted in a manner befitting the Commander in Chief these 3,000 deaths might not have occurred.

Okay, the Sudan thing is bullsmurf. The guy who offered Bin Laden up did not have Bin Laden to offer. He was not someone to take seriously.

Two, failing to prevent is not the same as causing. I'm not suggesting the Bush caused the World Trade Center attacks.

Three, if you think they're using New York City for any reason other than the attacks, you're fooling yourself.

Four, this is highly disrespectful of everyone who died on September 11th. They're going to use it as a rallying cry to win votes for our President, who--like it or not--was the highest executive officer when the attacks occurred. We failed to prevent this and he was in charge. Three years after the attacks, he's still using their deaths to further his career. But you won't hear Bush say that. You won't hear him say, "It was my job to protect those people and I failed." But, amazingly, it was his job and he did fail.

Jaligard attributed the deaths of 3,000 people to the current president.  I clarified that this might not have happened if the prior president had acted in an appropriate manner that these people need not have died.

Clearer for you?

...and if the CIA had not trained Osama Bin Laden, then the attack may not have accured either.

It's like a stupid game of telephone, or the current "sing Sing Sing" thread in Unplugged. In other words, it can go on ad nauseum, and is easier to avoid when you stick to the subject at hand.

To clarify, what may have caused the 3000 deaths at the WTC DOES NOT change the fact that the RNC may be trying to capitalize on those deaths.

Clearer for you too?

registered_user seems to be constantly hurling unfounded insults at either the President, the administration, or the party. In point of fact, whether the RNC chooses NYC or Nome, Alaska to hold its convention is determined more by Delegate participation than by symbology and site preference.  Having attended planning meetings for the party convention through state delegates, I can tell you first hand that site preference takes a back seat to  delegate arrangements.

I wonder if there's a correlation between my "unfounded" insults and the guy in the White House.  Oh, that's right.  A Republican is in the White House.  If Clinton were still there, I'd be "constantly hurling unfounded insults" at him too, but how could you know that?  You're too busy apologizing.

Now, are you suggesting that the RNC being held in September in NYC is to make it easy for delegates?  Are you suggesting that in the entire existence of the Republican party they are just learning now that September in NYC is the most convenient for their delegates?  I find that improbable at best.