Democrat-ic Convention

[stebo0728]

Ok, nothing to say yet, but figured I'd at least start a competing thread instead of mulling on in the RNC thread.

I gotta give a shout down to the home team for a sec though. Lets not be haters on Obama's timing on his Isaac tour. I seem to remember haters hating on 'ol W for the same thing back during Katrina, and we defended him then. Yes Obama was campaigning, but most events are booked and planned WELL ahead of time and would be cost prohibitive to change. Theres lots of issues to hammer him on besides this. Lets refocus on what matters!

So...let's see how well Sandra Fluke and Bill Clinton get along....cigars anyone?

[themadscientist]

I predict Obama gets the nomination.

I think it would be interesting to see if there are any differences amongst the Democrats assembled or if it will just be a mindless love in like the Republicans wanted so badly for their convention to be.

[WDRacing]

Can we assign someone the detail of counting how many times they blame Bush?

[themadscientist]

This much.

[Eikon]

The republicans said, "yes we did build it" like 100,000,000 times.. Clearly a big jab at Obama (which I guess was taken a bit out of context anyway).

I wonder how many times the Dems will crack at Ryan's marathon time.. lol

I'm sure they'll find something to latch on to.. They always need a catch phrase for the week.

[stebo0728]

Me thinks the war drums will play louder behind Sandra Fluke, than they did behind Condi Rice. This manufactured "war on women" I am expecting to be a large theme, maybe right below the "Bush left us a mess" theme.

[Bubba1]

Since the DNC convention is in Charlotte, I suspect the crowd at the ol' Paper Doll Lounge will be overflowing. (ahem)

[Bubba1]

I was looking over the list of speakers (yawn). I didn't see Sandra Fluke on the list. Other than the candidates, the only ones I might listen to are Corey Booker (mayor of Newark NJ), Bill Clinton, and perhaps Michelle Obama.

[themadscientist]

Why the hell do they give speaking slots to spouses? I don't want to hear them run their sucks. Notice i said "spouses." When we gt a first,,gentleman? He can kindly STFU too.

[Bubba1]

Why the hell do they give speaking slots to spouses? .

To humanize their slimy politician spouses I suppose.

[stebo0728]

Cory Booker "...being asked to pay your fair share is not class warfare, its patriotism"

Cute, if you were actually after a fair share I would agree with you, but when 50% of America pays ZERO federal taxes, then yes my friend, "fair share' is most definitely a class warfare term.

[Bubba1]

I did chuckle when when he said "Virginia is for lovers, but in NJ, we invented the drive-in theater."

[stebo0728]

2 clashing ideologies I've picked up on, mutually exclusive ideologies, between the 2 parties:

Republicans - The government belongs to us
Democrats - We belong to the government

There's really no middle ground between those 2 positions. Which do you align with?

As a conservative, and someone who's actually read the DoI, I can't see any way to align myself with a party platform who considers us to be owned by our government. At the same time, though, things have gotten so out of hand, I don't know that we can actually state with a straight face that "the government belongs to us" anymore. But my position would be, that the intention is that the government belongs to the people it governs, that it IS "for and by" the people it governs.

[themadscientist]

You must have missed the RNC convention. They also believe we belong to the government. They don't clash hardly at all anymore.

[stebo0728]

You may well have a point regarding the impressions one can draw from Republican actions, but I did not get that impression from their words at the convention. Clint Eastwood and Romney both made statements in their speeches to the effect that we own the government.

[Marenta]

Not a bad speech by Michelle. She did miles to humanize Barak, much more so than Ann did for Mitt. She seemed genuine, but don't they all?

[stebo0728]

Ok, so one of the central themes/talking points was that Obama saved the auto industry. False. Obama circumvented the rule of law, and took the law into his own hands to save a large segment of his voting class, the UAW.

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuz ... y-bolshoi/

This puts it pretty well.

First of all, just assuming for a moment that GM would have gone under. That is not even a very accurate conclusion from the situation at hand, but just for a moment assume that was the result of their troubles. This WOULD NOT have been a death sentence for the auto industry. In fact, it may have been just what the industry needed to get an underproducing, failing competitor out of the marketplace, making room for more efficient, and more market sensitive competitors. Thats one thing that is so marvelous about capitalism, markets are not beholden or dependant on one central entity. The industry may have lulled a bit as the competition worked overtime to fill the void left by GM, employees of GM would have been out of a job, but many would have been absorbed by the demand vacuum of the other players on the board.

Ok, so more realistically, GM would have sought protection under normal Chapter 11 Bankruptcy law, and would have survived the ordeal. This would have given them the ability to renegotiate labor contracts though, and we can't have that. Maybe $70 an hour compensation level are a big part of the problem, but no we can't do anything about that. So we'll just throw the law books down on the bottom shelf and ignore them. We'll do anything and everything to be sure our unions are appeased.

No Obama did not save the auto industry, in fact history may well show that he set it back even further by undue government manipulation. I do not mark this in any way as a win for Mr. POTUS.

[stebo0728]

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/democratic ... charlotte/

[Bubba1]

Not a bad speech by Michelle. She did miles to humanize Barak, much more so than Ann did for Mitt. She seemed genuine, but don't they all?

I saw her speech. She's pretty sharp. Princeton, Harvard Law, etc. I thought her speech was better than Ann Romney's but then again I don't see either of them swaying anyone's vote.

I might have to DVR Clinton's speech tonight as my New Yawk Giants are playing the Cowboys tonight on national TV.

[themadscientist]

You may well have a point regarding the impressions one can draw from Republican actions, but I did not get that impression from their words at the convention. Clint Eastwood and Romney both made statements in their speeches to the effect that we own the government.

Well, Clint Eastwood is not the nominee so what he says means nothing. I would tend to beleive his sincerity, though. Mitt Romney can say he's a 6 foot tub of raspberry jello, it doesn't make it so. Don't listen to what they say, investigate what they have done and see if it jives. Barry said he would be a "uniter" and offer "hope and change." How'd that turn out?

[carloslebaron]

I do enjoy the music in Democrat conventions... too bad there is not hard rock music in the Republican ones...

[themadscientist]

Did they play "I'm too sexy" when Bill Clinton came out?

[Bubba1]

I do enjoy the music in Democrat conventions... too bad there is not hard rock music in the Republican ones...

Somehow I can't see "Dude looks like a lady", going over well with the RNC, well, at least in public.

[stebo0728]

So did you hear the ordeal with putting God, and pro-Israel back into the DNC platform? Yeah the delegates pretty obviously voice voted the move down, but they pushed it through anyway. Watch the video, pretty stunning. Im not speaking to whether or not God should be in their platform, just that they seemed to do this solely for political posturing reasons. They were going to do it whether the delegates agreed or not. They had to do the vote 3 TIMES! and you can sense them struggling.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISvoPQ5jtzk[/youtube]

[Bubba1]

So did you hear the ordeal with putting God, and pro-Israel back into the DNC platform? Yeah the delegates pretty obviously voice voted the move down, but they pushed it through anyway. Watch the video, pretty stunning. Im not speaking to whether or not God should be in their platform, just that they seemed to do this solely for political posturing reasons. They were going to do it whether the delegates agreed or not. They had to do the vote 3 TIMES! and you can sense them struggling.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISvoPQ5jtzk[/youtube]

I suspect they did it a few times as counting by voice sounds is more difficult to determine a 2/3 majority than by actual counting of delegates, but then again its easier to manipulate the voice results to win the way that appeases donors.

Sounds like the bigger issue was not the items themselves but who removed them from the platform without delegate approval. I doubt they're gonna reveal whodunit. Looks like the RNC isn't the only party that breaks its own rules.

[stebo0728]

I suspect they did it a few times as counting by voice sounds is more difficult to determine a 2/3 majority than by actual counting of delegates, but then again its easier to manipulate the voice results to win the way that appeases donors.

True, and that may be the case, and I've heard arguments that the acoustics were different on stage than in the cam mic. Still, if you watch the mannerisms of the chairman, he's sort of taken aback by the first try, and is a bit lost on what to do so he takes the vote again, and then is even more off balance at the second result. Then he just ignores the third result and carries on with his instructions.

Sounds like the bigger issue was not the items themselves but who removed them from the platform without delegate approval. I doubt they're gonna reveal whodunit. Looks like the RNC isn't the only party that breaks its own rules.

Agreed, and that was what I was getting at, was hoping TMS would see this LOL

[bigbadberry3]

So did you hear the ordeal with putting God, and pro-Israel back into the DNC platform? Yeah the delegates pretty obviously voice voted the move down, but they pushed it through anyway. Watch the video, pretty stunning. Im not speaking to whether or not God should be in their platform, just that they seemed to do this solely for political posturing reasons. They were going to do it whether the delegates agreed or not. They had to do the vote 3 TIMES! and you can sense them struggling.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISvoPQ5jtzk[/youtube]

That was horrible. Let you party stand where the delegates choose it to be. Utterly embarrassing that they clearly lied to "improve" the party stance.

[themadscientist]

We of the RNC approve of our esteemed colleagues' tactics to corral their ideological stragglers.

[stebo0728]

So, did anyone hear anything different than every other speech this man has ever given?

[Marenta]

Actually, I did. The words and meanings were the same, but, he actually admitted he's responsible and he showed humility. Being humble is something that most politicians haven't done since they were 5 years old.