I love the way the convention is not covered by the major networks. Let the wags and the wonks sit through it, and Joe six-pack can read about it in the next days paper or listen to the DJs joke about it on the drive to work... The NY Daily News has a glowing article about THK - when those that actually watched it found her a bore. Same for Kennedy, Kephart and Dashle. Where do they find these old windbags?
As for Obama - as only Nixon could go to China, only he could say something like this:
"Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn--they know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white,"

Re: Democratic Convention -- What's the point?
 

Bill went so he could get some blow jobs. Hillary went to kick off her campaign '08 - also to prove she's still a c*nt.

Dr. Wilson, ever the gentleman.
Ever tried the what the air is like outside the gutter? Or are you perhaps twelve years old and experience the first onrush of hormones?

Beetho, from you, that's a compliment. Many affections to you.

But you notice he didn't disagree with you?:D

Well, with you guys it seems to be either nether body regions or Hitler that orient your political compass. Looks like a pretty unhappy world to me.

Which d-erection do you think President Clinton's compass is pointing? Here... little intern.........

Maybe it's both sides that are driven by primal urges. I'm sure that you, Mr Beetho, because of your superiority are above all that. All hail you.

I think it's pretty obvious that it has been a flop so far. The ratings are pathetic and the speakers have for the most part been lacking. Obama is a good speaker, but other than one anti-war line I didn';t hear anything the Republicans disagree with. Alot of civil rights stuff etc... great, who do you think wrote most of the civil rights legislation? THK was awefull! I listened to the whole thing and still don't know what her point was. She mentioned her husband ONE time???? Whatever though, she's not a player here, and probably had no business occupying such an important slot. Will the epulican Convention be any better? Who knows,, but damn I hope so, this has been bad!

Hmmm...it hasn't been covered as highly as I remember other conventions in the past...

I don't think the republicans will do much better in the ratings, though.

OTOH, what is the point of the convention, other than to get drunk & laid (Democrats), or drunk and feel up an altar boy (Republicans).

Well said, and unbiased Brian. I agree pretty much entirely. Tonight and tomorrow could erase all the bad so far, we'll see. One thing I will note is that the delegates don't seem one bit too happy with the tone so far. Did you hear the reception for Dean? That was/is their guy.

This is a very good point, and brought out by - of all people - Michael Moore in an interview with Ted Koppel. No, not all of the delegates are very happy. There seems to be a split down party lines as to what the party's hopes are. Some people want Kerry, and there are others who just want Bush out, but would like to see someone else running. Also, many delegates want the U.S. completely out of Iraq now, while Kerry has stated that the troops will stay - so there is some fundamental party-line disagreement already beginning to assemble - and the man hasn't even officially accepted the nomination!

Interesting. I agree, in a sense, that the party is fractured; if at all, it better get a command performance in the remaining days - and that can only come from Kerry. Unfortunately, Kerry is not a convincing speaker. And I'm not sure his wife helped. People are starting to dislike THK. They see a re-spawning of Hilary Clinton in this woman - or maybe something even worse. :eek:

The Dems Should just raise the The Hammer and Sickle flag.

Why would they try to co-opt the Republican flag?

In a sense, I kinda agree with Island, sort of, but not completely. My first reaction was that this remark (Why are the Dems making speeches) came from someone who lacks the ability to recognize the appropriate or significant or important platform positions held by Dems. You do not like their views, so why should you recognize the importance of their convention.

But then I yoga'd and chanted some mantras, read some Holy Script, calmed down and realized that this relates to my main complaint. The Dems have absolutely not placed their platform in the public eye. In my view, the Democratic Party has failed miserably to get its message, and beliefs and platforms, out there before Americans so they can have a clear choice. And the opportunity is lost now, because it's time for both parties to try to capture the "middle ground."

What I think is perhaps the most interesting observation here is that, in spite of the Dems' complete failure in getting its philosophy packaged and placed on the shelf for consumption, roughly half the nation shares its belief systema and regularly shows that at election time. Let's see, last time we elected a "president" the Democratic candidate got, MORE VOTES than the fellow who was anointed "president."

Almost as interesting is Mul's insistence that he believes in democracy, while at the same time casting the liberal majority of voters as "traitors." Another head-scratcher is his reliance on Rush Limbaugh for information. That, in itself, is certainly a curiosity, but Mul goes so far as to publicly announce his trust in that lying druggie whom the rest of the country finds either amusing or pathetic. Or both, alternately. I think Mr. Franken moved on to other targets because he wanted some challenge in his work. Poking holes in Rush's rhetoric is elementary-school stuff. But hey, Mul's buying it and bragging about it.

"Let's see, last time we elected a "president" the Democratic candidate got, MORE VOTES than the fellow who was anointed "president."

You really need to get this outta your head. The fact is unimportant. Presidential elections are campaigned by STATE. Bush all but ignored several staes as did Gore. It is no surprise that the states ignored by Bush have the higest population hence he ignored ALOT of voters. Not because he wanted to, but because you have to to make efficient use of your funds. We dont know what would happen in the popular vote if we campaigned for it, and neither do you.

I'm not sure I share these sceptical accounts of the convention, or the belief that the Dems haven't managed to get their message accross, or the idea that if people only knew the real Kerry they would like him more.
The reason why we're seeing so little movement in the polls is that people have long made up their minds. We've entered an era when people vote according to values rather than issues, and no amount of information will convince them otherwise. It doesn't matter to them that two Joint Chiefs of Staff are supporting Kerry because he doesn't represent their values. The Republicans have done a fabulous job converting every political decision (which ideally should be rational and value-free) into a decisive moral issue, a la abortion, and when they run out of steam, or things are going badly for them in Iraq, they're inserting a new value item into the debate, like gay marriage.
Someone like Mul (who once posted a photo showing Bush among soldiers, adding: God, I love this man) is the ideal product of this strategy. It's the end of modern democracy and the beginning of a new middle ages, where you swear allegiance to your lord (and his family!) regardless how stupid or debauched he may be.

No Lendaddy, I am not asserting that the electoral college system, with a little interpretive input from the US Supreme Court, chose the wrong guy. I get it. Your post suggests you missed my point. Mul keeps talking about us liberals as traitors, and says he also believes in democracy. I just think that suggesting the majority of voters in a democracy are traitors, is a curious concept. Perhaps he can help me reconcile those two views like apparently he and Rush have.

I was not addressing your dispute with Mull, I was addressing something you have brought up many times:

That Gore won the popular vote, as if it matters. That's all. If the election were determined that way, the campaigns and therefore the results would be very different.

It is getting old.

Obama brought that up (convention) too. I suppose the Dem's (and constiit's) are accustom to being "the Victim". . . .SO the more they can play-up just how Wronged they were, the more sympathy. . ..Going for the pity-vote, I suppose.

But alas, Lendaddy is spot on; if Bush (the incumbent) was trying to win the popular vote, he would have campaigned differently, for sure.

It is true, that Bush shouldn't have won . . . but only because Gore blew it.

If you lib's believe otherwise, I suggest you stay home for this Vote. . . since it's all rigged by GW anyway. :rolleyes:

You've got a point - liberals are often accused of "demonising the rich".

The same accusers demonise liberals - all of them, 50% of the population - as communists or socialists or X or Y or Z. Its up there in this thread...

I'm all for government efficiency, but I recognise that it comes at a human cost. For every efficiency gain through a smaller welfare state (for instance), someone is slipping behind or through the cracks.

Less welfare, public education and health spending means.... less welfare, public education and health service. But people's needs don't change.

can I get a big "who cares?" from the choir?

politcal conventions are just like nascar races. Lots of noise from 'merikun iron while going around and around in circles. They only stop to take on more GAS, or when somebody crashes.

I thought you guys hated nascar? Then why are you watching the conventions? Unless of course you guys actually LIKE nascar. Oh...now it all makes sense.

hmmm...he doth protest too much methinks...

If you guys want to continue to talk about electoral college versus popular vote, I'd be happy to join in but wouldn't it make sense to discuss that in its own thread? Not a bad idea since we are the only democracy on the planet (as far as I know) that does not elect leaders using a plain, simple, popular vote. Or perhaps you're just trying to create the perception that I am whining about the electoral college thing. That would be dishonest. Typical, but dishonest. Or maybe you'd like to once again see the list of fruitcake oddball events that ALL had to take place in order for Dubya to get into the White House. You know, the list of events that wouldn't happen in a million years but happened in 2000. But anyway, back to the topic at hand.

In case you missed my point:

Mul thinks the majority of Americans are traitors. That's impossible in a democracy. That's my point. It is impossible for the majority of voters to be engaging in treachery, in a democracy.

Now, ahem, if you want to talk about voting irregularities like in Florida, which apparently occur roughly monthly at least.....or if you want to talk about the wisdom of (or lack thereof) of the electoral college system......or if you want to remind everyone who the president is.........or if you want to make everyone think I am whining about the outcome of the last election....then start a thread and I'll meet you there. In the meantime, and especially for those of you who someone is hoping to fool, my point is:

It is impossible for the majority of Americans to be traitors. In a democracy anyway, it is impossible.

Of course, Mul will still take that position even though it is deductively impossible on its face, being the designated provider of conservative logic caricaturizations.

When did I say that?

I do believe that those who stab the President in the back during war time, spread lies that get discounted but persist in them, aid and abet the Islamofascist enemy, demoralize the troops by covering the bad in Iraq and ignore the good...these people who perpetuate these lies, and by association their constituency, are behaving in a treasonous manner.

This is unfortunately what the Democrat party has become. Power is more important than the Nation's safety and the economies well being.

The Democrats have done nothing but "talk down the economy" (something they were very critical of Bush for in 2000) for the last 3+ years. The Democrats have released books issuing falsities about Bush, Sandy Berger robbed Intel that tainted the 9/11 investigation...Jamie Goerlick was instrumental in constructing the wall that disabled interagency communication...Bill Clinton let Osama Bin Laden slip through his fingers...Richard Clarke failed the country during the Clinton administration.

Ya, I guess you are right, whoever votes for Democrats are traitors.

Don't confuse priests with Republicans...Some of the most left wing commies I know are Catholics (including some on this board).

Rush Limbaugh is a liar?...Name some for me...There must be mountains of them.

You sound like most Rush haters...Never listened to more than 1/2 hour of him and have him wrapped up and figured out.

So, what is it about my Rush quote that you found false?

Assertion #1: Clinton claims the Bush administration "walked away from our allies in attacking Iraq,"

There are in fact four of these, actually five of these. In this one paragraph there are five assertions made that are totally inaccurate. They're totally wrong -- and I just need to close the loop on the first one. This is where Clinton claims the Bush administration walked away from our allies in attacking Iraq. We did not walk away from allies! We begged; we went to the UN. We spent 14 months at the United Nations trying to put together a coalition. We walked away from nothing, but at some point the president decides that the defense of this country is our responsibility and he's not going to leave it up to France and Germany. France and Germany made an aggressive and conscious effort to undermine our efforts at the United Nations, and I wonder this. Why exactly does President Clinton side with the French and the Germans rather than his own country, particularly when the merits of the argument are on the side of his own country?

Go ahead hater...Tear Rush a new one...I'll make some popcorn

"Peace cannot be achieved by developing a "understanding" with the Russian People. "

"There is no such thing as war atrocities. "

Do you actually believe this? The traitor part? Remember, you're talking about half of your country here. Tell me you're just being obnoxious - you can't possible believe this...

And the Rush quote:

We walked away from nothing, but at some point the president decides that the defense of this country is our responsibility and he's not going to leave it up to France and Germany.

I already answered this above, but I'll give you the cliff notes, and more:

1) He walked away from something - otherwise relations between the US and the countries he walked away from wouldn't have worsened.

2) Defense of the country against what? Saddam was not someone who required defending against. He had no ability to attack America. None. Iraq as a country never has had the ability.

3) France, Germany AND Russia. To nitpick. And a large part of the rest of Europe. And other important countries worldwide ---> just not the UK and Australia.

Basically, the whole statement is far more misleading, and requires far greater leaps of logic to accept, than Clinton's referring to "walking away from our allies" comment.

Rush the liar? Didn't Rush - in effect - lie about drug use? Besides, the point of Super's post is to question you using Rush as a major source of information. In case you hadn't noticed, Rush is kinda biased ;).

Cam
Proud "commie" :rolleyes: Catholic

Actually, what happened was Gore lost the election and he decided to steal it. His DNC puppetmasters chose 4 corrupted Democrat counties (corrupt because they are Democrat), disenfranchised the military ballots, brought in the "Psychic Friend's Network" to divine which way the "chads" were hanging (remember the punch card ballot was no new system in those counties).

The bought and paid for Democrat Florida Supreme Court aided and abetted the Gore criminal enterprise, changed the laws after the count three times, race-baited black people...After all of this the Supreme Court had to call a much needed bull*****...It is illegal to change vote counting after the vote has concluded..It is and was unConstitutional and the intention was simply and malevolently to overturn an election.

Both AlWhore and GW campaigned for the ELECTORAL COLLEGE...Neither AlWhore or GW campaigned for the popular vote...Bush won, despite the attempted hijacking and despite the widespread and pattern voter fraud and union thuggery (without voter fraud and union thugs illegally misappropriating non-taxed union dues for campaigning for Democrats, the Democrat party wouldn't have a chance in hell.)

Ted Kennedy didn't serve a day in jail for murdering her...But her life saved us from him.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha :D

Wheeeeeze

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha :) :)

Dude, you are way out there today....

All Democrats corrupt? No Republican's corrupt? If a Republican won the county, would it immediately become un-corrupt?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha :) :)

I like Supers point that the majority of any given population cannot be traitors. It's a logical point, and therefore WAY over Mul's head.
I notice Mul has changed his byline to Christian soldier. I knew he'd be going medieval on us.

Maybe he means 'mutineers' rather than 'traitors'???

Who knows.

That's quite areach there super. Seems you're equivocating on democ-rat (leadership) and democrat (voter). But, hey, equivocating to build a strawman argument isn't the worst thing you've done, I imagine.
Besides, you get the bonus of pulling Mul into the absurd.
Like Cam said; WHEeeeeee. . .

not much of a pull. More of a push to try and get out of the absurd...

Bad enough we're even talking about this. A democracy guarantees the free exercise of opinions, within certain, but very wide limits. Criminalizing that exercise (indeed suggesting that the opposition be put to death, since treason is subject to capital punishment, as our most Christian soldier surely knows) means putting an end to democracy.
Nothing to do with democrats.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1091071279.jpg

http://www.nynews.com/newsroom/011304/b01p13reisman.html