Democratic Convention -- What's the point?

[island911]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I was not addressing your dispute with Mull, I was addressing something you have brought up many times:. . .

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.

[CamB]

Originally posted by Superman
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.

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.

[nostatic]

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...

[Superman]

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.

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by Superman
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.

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.

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by widebody911
or drunk and feel up an altar boy (Republicans).

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

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by Superman
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.

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

[ubiquity0]

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

[ubiquity0]

"There is no such thing as war atrocities. "

[CamB]

Originally posted by Mulholland
Bunch of one eyed, pro-Republican, you're either for us or against us, stuff

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

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" Catholic

[SteveStromberg]

[Mulholland]

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

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.)

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by SteveStromberg

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

[CamB]

Quote from Mul:
(corrupt because they are Democrat),

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

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

[Beethoven]

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.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by Beethoven
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.

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

Who knows.

[island911]

Originally posted by Superman
. . .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.. . .

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. . .

[nostatic]

Originally posted by island911

Besides, you get the bonus of pulling Mul into the absurd.

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

[Beethoven]

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.

[SteveStromberg]

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