Republican Convention

[ClydeR]

What do you think of the convention so far?

[ClydeR]

Chris Christie speech.


By my count, Mr. Christie used the word “Romney” six times in his address. He used the word “I” 30 times, plus a couple of “me’s” and “my’s” tossed in for seasoning.

More... (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/chris-christie-but-enough-about-mitt-lets-talk-about-me/)

Was Christie promoting Romney or promoting Christie's 2016 prospects?

[ClydeR]

Mike Huckabee speech.

Of all the speakers so far, Huckabee has given the best delivery. The only possible distraction was his opening joke about Debbie Wasserman Schultz.


Tampa has been such a wonderful and hospitable city to us. The only hitch in an otherwise perfect week was the awful noise coming from the hotel room next door to mine. Turns out it was just Debbie Wasserman Schultz practicing her speech for the DNC in Charlotte next week. Bless her heart.

More... (http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2012/08/29/3105481/mike-huckabee-mocks-debbie-wasserman-schultz-in-his-rnc-address)

I didn't get it.

[Back]

What a complete joke.

[ClydeR]

Condoleezza Rice?

Excellent speech. She might go places.

[Allereli]

2 of the 5 black people there are not having a good time:


Raynard Jackson, a black GOP political consultant, wrote Tuesday on the RootDC Live blog that he is “embarrassed by the lack of diversity” at the convention and frustrated by his party’s empty promises.

“The Republican line is that the overwhelming majority of blacks will vote for Obama because he is African American,” Jackson wrote. “I find this thinking extremely insulting as a black Republican. The reason the majority of blacks will vote for Obama is because Republicans have not given African Americans a reason to vote for Republicans or Romney.”


On Tuesday, convention organizers ejected two attendees after they reportedly threw peanuts at a black CNN camerawoman and told her, “This is how we feed animals.” Organizers called the conduct “inexcusable and unacceptable.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-republican-convention-emphasizes-diversity-racial-incidents-intrude/2012/08/29/b9023a52-f1ec-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html

[Jarvan]

2 of the 5 black people there are not having a good time:





http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-republican-convention-emphasizes-diversity-racial-incidents-intrude/2012/08/29/b9023a52-f1ec-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html

What exactly do the Democrats give African Americans... also.. why are they African first, why not be called American Africans? Also, isn't there alot of White people in some African Countries? Would they be African Americans if they immigrated here too?

[Back]

What exactly do the Democrats give African Americans... also.. why are they African first, why not be called American Africans? Also, isn't there alot of White people in some African Countries? Would they be African Americans if they immigrated here too?

Really?

[Allereli]

Really?

Only white people from Italy and Ireland are allowed to put those first, doncha know?

[WRoss]

After this convention, all I can say is, "Gary Johnson."

[Androidpk]

Condoleezza Rice?

Excellent speech. She might go places.

Hopefully prison.

[Parkbandit]

Hopefully prison.

For what charge?

You are such a bitter clinger at this point.

I guess Romney really did have enough delegates to get the nomination. Who knew!?

Personally, I think the highlight of the convention so far has been Love, Rice and Ryan. Tough acts for Mitt to follow.

[Allereli]

Personally, I think the highlight of the convention so far has been Love, Rice and Ryan. Tough acts for Mitt to follow.

Ryan for the unintentional comedy?

[Androidpk]

You calling anyone bitter is hilarious.

[Parkbandit]

Ryan for the unintentional comedy?

I thought his speech was fantastic actually.

I don't expect you to have the same type of response, given his speech was centered about ideals that you disagree with.

[Jarvan]

Only white people from Italy and Ireland are allowed to put those first, doncha know?

Got this rep Comment..

really? IRISH-AMERICAN, ITALIAN-AMERICAN. white ppl do it, too

Frankly, I think that's fucking stupid as well. I don't call myself a Ukrainian American. I am an American. Why do people feel the need to have to divide themselves? Why can't we just all be American's or even just Humans.

I don't give two shits about people's race, I judge people on their actions. Frankly, I know more assholes that are white then any other "color".

[Allereli]

I thought his speech was fantastic actually.

I don't expect you to have the same type of response, given his speech was centered about ideals that you disagree with.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/


Ryan may have helped solve some of the likeability problems facing Romney, but ultimately by trying to deceive voters about basic facts and trying to distract voters from his own record, Ryan’s speech caused a much larger problem for himself and his running mate.

Romney is running on his record as a businessman, check out what he did at Bain. What fantastic ideals.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pictures/mitt-romneys-federal-bailout-the-documents-20120829?fb_action_ids=10152050523495214&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=246965925417366


By March 1992 — barely nine months after the initial restructuring — Romney was hitting up the government and Bain's other creditors for a bailout, asking that the firm be allowed to repay its debts at just 35 cents on the dollar.

Why didn't Bain's creditors just push the firm into bankruptcy and divvy up its assets? After all, the firm was flush with borrowed cash following the 1991 restructuring.

The documents reveal that Romney had perverse leverage: The terms of the 1991 deal gave Bain the authority to reward its executives with massive bonuses, regardless of performance.

[ClydeR]

I thought his speech was fantastic actually.

I don't expect you to have the same type of response, given his speech was centered about ideals that you disagree with.

He's no Sarah Palin. Nobody since has matched Palin's speech.

There was also less public interest in Ryan's speech than Palin's.


Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee, drew fewer viewers than the 37.2 million that nominee Sarah Palin attracted four years ago.

The final hour of convention coverage last night attracted slightly more than 20 million viewers, according to Nielsen data reported by two websites, TV Newser and TV by the Numbers.

More... (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-30/ryan-s-convention-speech-draws-fewer-viewers-than-palin)

[Parkbandit]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/

Wait.. so I enjoyed the speech and your response to me is an opinion by a liberal on the speech?

I guess "you" showed me!




Romney is running on his record as a businessman, check out what he did at Bain. What fantastic ideals.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/pictures/mitt-romneys-federal-bailout-the-documents-20120829?fb_action_ids=10152050523495214&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=246965925417366

I'll vote for someone who actually ran a business and seems to be pro-business over someone who didn't and clearly isn't every single day of the week.

[Allereli]

Got this rep Comment..

really? IRISH-AMERICAN, ITALIAN-AMERICAN. white ppl do it, too

Frankly, I think that's fucking stupid as well. I don't call myself a Ukrainian American. I am an American. Why do people feel the need to have to divide themselves? Why can't we just all be American's or even just Humans.

I don't give two shits about people's race, I judge people on their actions. Frankly, I know more assholes that are white then any other "color".

It's called heritage. People are a product of many things, and where they come from is one of them. Within the USA we have many unique lifestyles and cultures and one of the great things about this country is the diversity. Why does race and gender matter to me when it comes to the Republican party? because it is so shockingly white and male.

from my previously linked WP article:


Bositis also said that only two members of the 165-member RNC are black and that none of the leaders of the committees responsible for drafting the GOP platform and adopting the convention rules are black.

[Allereli]

I'll vote for someone who actually ran a business and seems to be pro-business over someone who didn't and clearly isn't every single day of the week.

The US government is not a business, nor should it be. Government is a symbol of community and society. It makes laws and regulations to reflect societal norms on how we should treat each other and collects taxes for basic services such as roads, helping the needy, and defense.

[Tgo01]

The US government is not a business, nor should it be. Government is a symbol of community and society. It makes laws and regulations to reflect societal norms on how we should treat each other and collects taxes for basic services such as roads, helping the needy, and defense.

I don't think PB said anything about governments being a business or that they should be run like a business.

[Wrathbringer]

LOL @ Christie's speech about how we need to start telling the hard truth's about what needs to be done. That's what RPMD did, and obviously no one wanted to hear that. Also, LOL @ Paul Ryan trying to act like a conservative. We're doomed.

[Parkbandit]

LOL @ Christie's speech about how we need to start telling the hard truth's about what needs to be done. That's what RPMD did, and obviously no one wanted to hear that. Also, LOL @ Paul Ryan trying to act like a conservative. We're doomed.

You and PK should start up a support group.

[Wrathbringer]

You and PK should start up a support group.

Truth is truth. Continue to play the establishment's game if you want, but I'm finished.

[Allereli]

I don't think PB said anything about governments being a business or that they should be run like a business.

So you just want someone who will pander to the business interests and allow banks and corporations to run amok like before? Corporations are sitting on piles of cash and the boards and executives are pocketing it all, not hiring.

[Tgo01]

So you just want someone who will pander to the business interests and allow banks and corporations to run amok like before? Corporations are sitting on piles of cash and the boards and executives are pocketing it all, not hiring.

Exactly what I said, word for word.

[Allereli]

Exactly what I said, word for word.

But this is their platform

[Tgo01]

But this is their platform

They said their plan is to pander to business interests and allow banks and corporations to run amok so corporations can sit on large piles of cash and not hire people? Or is that how the left wants people to think their platform is?

Why do people think businesses and corporations don't want people to have jobs anyway? A business isn't going to last very long if people aren't working.

[Androidpk]

They said their plan is to pander to business interests and allow banks and corporations to run amok so corporations can sit on large piles of cash and not hire people? Or is that how the left wants people to think their platform is?

Why do people think businesses and corporations don't want people to have jobs anyway? A business isn't going to last very long if people aren't working.

It's not just the left that thinks that.

[Tgo01]

It's not just the left that thinks that.

A large unemployed workforce doesn't benefit anyone, not even rich CEOs of huge corporations. Why would the Republicans want a high unemployment rate? I would really love to hear someone explain this.

[Allereli]

A large unemployed workforce doesn't benefit anyone, not even rich CEOs of huge corporations. Why would the Republicans want a high unemployment rate? I would really love to hear someone explain this.

Because they don't care about anyone else but themselves.

[Keller]

A large unemployed workforce doesn't benefit anyone, not even rich CEOs of huge corporations. Why would the Republicans want a high unemployment rate? I would really love to hear someone explain this.

A large unemployed workforce is cheap labor.

Next?

[Androidpk]

Who do you think politicians are more interested in. Rich business owners or unemployed people? If companies aren't hiring more than the bare minimum both the owners and the politicians profit.

[Keller]

Love the Nazi salute from Ryan. Classic.

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/1gNATg3SYMyb5EQxVaT.3Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNTM7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/557b63c05b8cab18190f6a706700df33.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Because they don't care about anyone else but themselves.

You cracked it, Sherlock! CEOs don't want to expand their businesses because they don't care about anyone but themselves!

Well, except if they did expand their businesses.. they would actually make MO MONEY MO MONEY MO MONEY to spend on themselves...

You might want to think through your theory again.

[Parkbandit]

Who do you think politicians are more interested in. Rich business owners or unemployed people? If companies aren't hiring more than the bare minimum both the owners and the politicians profit.

Except they could make more money with more employees... and politicians could spend more money with more tax revenue.

[Androidpk]

Why risk expanding your business when you can make more money by slashing jobs and pensions?

[Parkbandit]

Love the Nazi salute from Ryan. Classic.

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/1gNATg3SYMyb5EQxVaT.3Q--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD0zNTM7cT04NTt3PTUxMg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/557b63c05b8cab18190f6a706700df33.jpg

He blew it with his hand.. he should take notes from this guy:

http://www.vdare.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/lt1extl5bqzhc3u3hykxyv4xo1_4001.jpg

[Tgo01]

A large unemployed workforce is cheap labor.

Next?

So then these businesses should be hiring people and giving them slave wages or they should be cutting their current employees wages to the bare minimum.

So the Republican's plan is to basically crash our economy so businesses can pay people a fraction of what they are paying them now? Do businesses really benefit from a poor population of consumers?

[Kastrel]

What exactly do the Democrats give African Americans... also.. why are they African first, why not be called American Africans? Also, isn't there alot of White people in some African Countries? Would they be African Americans if they immigrated here too?

Technically, the politically correct term is now "Black", because of just this issue. Using the phrase African implies "from Africa", and while the majority of "Black" skinned individuals are in some what eventually descended from someone from Africa proper, it was considered disrespectful towards people who immigrated from say, Haiti, where they and their family had lived for hundreds of years. They were not African, but from the Carribean, or so the claim goes.

Similarly, you would never call a white individual who's family had lived in Africa for 500 years then moved to the US "African American". People would call him White, or at best, Caucasian or European. In the end, it was too much emphasis on the location of distant origin, rather than the actual difference biologically (skin tone).

As an aside, in my diversity classes I have discovered that the PC term for homosexuality is no longer homosexual, because of an over emphasis on the sexual nature. It is now officially "gay men and lesbians".

That said, PC etiquette shifts with the times, and what is considered correct now may be horrendously offensive in a decade, so take it all with a grain of salt. I'm still waiting for it to be "brown skinned" or "dark skinned". I remember how outraged people were when my 4 year old cousin called a Black woman "a brown lady". Why? He is being accurate. How is he supposed to know thats not correct?

[Keller]

So then these businesses should be hiring people and giving them slave wages or they should be cutting their current employees wages to the bare minimum.

So the Republican's plan is to basically crash our economy so businesses can pay people a fraction of what they are paying them now? Do businesses really benefit from a poor population of consumers?

You crazy.

[Allereli]

You cracked it, Sherlock! CEOs don't want to expand their businesses because they don't care about anyone but themselves!

Well, except if they did expand their businesses.. they would actually make MO MONEY MO MONEY MO MONEY to spend on themselves...

You might want to think through your theory again.

except expanding their businesses hasn't always worked in the past, and they found themselves in situations where they were too big. Hiring more and expanding business does not always equate to more money being made. In many cases it has led to bankruptcy, downsizing and job cuts. Corporations are getting just big enough to make a shit ton of money for initial investors. Very few put employee care and societal values first.

[Androidpk]

Very few put employee care and societal values first.

Emphasis on very few.

[Back]

Ryan is doing a great job. Nice pick, Mitt!

[Tgo01]

except expanding their businesses hasn't always worked in the past, and they found themselves in situations where they were too big. Hiring more and expanding business does not always equate to more money being made. In many cases it has led to bankruptcy, downsizing and job cuts.

I thought businesses wanted to run amok though? What did you mean by that if you didn't mean they wanted to keep expanding while not hiring more/providing their workers with more?

[Parkbandit]

except expanding their businesses hasn't always worked in the past, and they found themselves in situations where they were too big. Hiring more and expanding business does not always equate to more money being made. In many cases it has led to bankruptcy, downsizing and job cuts. Corporations are getting just big enough to make a shit ton of money for initial investors. Very few put employee care and societal values first.

Generally, businesses aren't there to put employee care and societal values first. They are in business to make the evil money.

Generally, businesses are more profitable if they can expand. Very few business have plans to keep their business as small as possible. The more employees, the more opportunity to make more money.

Seriously.. it's like I've entered the twilight zone and teaching capitalism to people who have never heard of it before.

[Parkbandit]

I thought businesses wanted to run amok though? What did you mean by that if you didn't mean they wanted to keep expanding while not hiring more/providing their workers with more?

You must be a one percenter with all that hate and greed.

[RichardCranium]

Did PB make an In Living Color reference? Respect.

[Back]

Generally, businesses aren't there to put employee care and societal values first. They are in business to make the evil money.

Generally, businesses are more profitable if they can expand. Very few business have plans to keep their business as small as possible. The more employees, the more opportunity to make more money.

Seriously.. it's like I've entered the twilight zone and teaching capitalism to people who have never heard of it before.

Money is not inherently evil. No one has said that it is. You keep pushing that idea on everyone and it is a false assumption. Literally your whole worldview is based on an inaccurate ideology. Come back to reality with the rest of us and realize that while money is not evil in and of itself there are people out there who will do ANYTHING to get that money and that is where the real problem is. You cannot disagree with a straight face.

[Parkbandit]

Money is not inherently evil. No one has said that it is. You keep pushing that idea on everyone and it is a false assumption. Literally your whole worldview is based on an inaccurate ideology. Come back to reality with the rest of us and realize that while money is not evil in and of itself there are people out there who will do ANYTHING to get that money and that is where the real problem is. You cannot disagree with a straight face.

Quoted for the lulz.

Seriously though.. if "reality" is where you dwell... no thank you.

[Allereli]

Generally, businesses aren't there to put employee care and societal values first. They are in business to make the evil money.

you shouldn't be so blinded by greed that you forget that there is a society

[Parkbandit]

you shouldn't be so blinded by greed that you forget that there is a society

You shouldn't be so blinded by ignorance that you forget that there is a reality.

[Allereli]

You shouldn't be so blinded by ignorance that you forget that there is a reality.

please, share with me what reality is. What is so bad about putting "US" above "ME"?

The reality is that the party of old white men believes everyone else is an interloper, "taking" from what they have "earned." Socially they exclude gays, immigrants, women, and every other American not sharing the same skin color. Reality is they are not attracting a vast majority of these demographics because they would have to change their policies to include the interests of these people, and that is not all about money.

[Back]

Quoted for the lulz.

Seriously though.. if "reality" is where you dwell... no thank you.

Well, if anything you are consistent, I'll give you that.

[Parkbandit]

please, share with me what reality is. What is so bad about putting "US" above "ME"?

The reality is that the party of old white men believes everyone else is an interloper, "taking" from what they have "earned." Socially they exclude gays, immigrants, women, and every other American not sharing the same skin color. Reality is they are not attracting a vast majority of these demographics because they would have to change their policies to include the interests of these people, and that is not all about money.

You seriously are drowning in Kool-Aid at this point.

Drowning.

[Tgo01]

please, share with me what reality is. What is so bad about putting "US" above "ME"?

Just curious, how much of your salary do you donate to charity?

[Back]

Just curious, how much of your salary do you donate to charity?

Curious, who the fuck do you think you are to ask that?

[Allereli]

Just curious, how much of your salary do you donate to charity?

As I am in debt from college loans, I donate what I can, mainly to a circus program that teaches leadership skills to poor children in DC. I would love to work with the children, but my schedule does not allow that. I will specify that I pay at least a full 10% more of my salary in taxes than Mitt Romney does. I make what I feel is a good living and spend smartly, allowing me to travel the world, I make less than $100k, and I live in one of the most expensive regions in the United States. That's also more specific information than was released in the Bain documents. A small 1 bedroom apartment here costs about $1600/mo, plus utilities.

It's not about how much money one gives to charity, it's about the attitude of society. Of saying a hair dresser, office cleaner, factory worker, flight attendant, etc etc have a right to be able to afford to live without struggling. To put it in Clinton terms, a strong middle class.

[Wrathbringer]

Just curious, how much of your salary do you donate to charity?

Everyone knows liberals don't give charitable contributions like other folks do. They view paying taxes to a huge government who they expect to take care of everyone as charity. As such, they believe they're absolved of their personal social responsibilities. Convenient, right? Besides, donating directly to an actual charity would demonstrate faith in the private sector's ability to get things accomplished, which would make them Republican/Libertarian.

[4a6c1]

University was ABUZZ with talk that Ryan blew smoke at the RNC. Fact checkers tore his speech to pieces today. I tried to avoid it but everyone was making fun of him.

Is it true that Mitt Romney is the only presidential candidate not to reveal his donors since 1966??

[Tgo01]

Curious, who the fuck do you think you are to ask that?

I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask someone who is claiming everyone (in a particular group) is so greedy and selfish with their money.

Why you so angry lately Back? Need a hug big guy?

[Latrinsorm]

Got this rep Comment..

really? IRISH-AMERICAN, ITALIAN-AMERICAN. white ppl do it, too

Frankly, I think that's fucking stupid as well. I don't call myself a Ukrainian American. I am an American. Why do people feel the need to have to divide themselves? Why can't we just all be American's or even just Humans.Spite.

Every human, every tribe, every race, every nation works its way towards a larger group... until someone tells them to, at which point they happily engage in generations of vendetta. Scotland, Ireland, Israel, break your backs O Israel.

Also, how far back Ukraine are you? I used to think I was Polish ancestry on that side, then I found out I might be technically Lithuanian or Russian (turn of the century was a vague time for the region).
You and PK should start up a support group.Do you really think Wrathbringer is a Paul truther? I mean... really?
Why would the Republicans want a high unemployment rate?I think you mean the Republicans. Make sense now, Terrence?
Is it true that Mitt Romney is the only presidential candidate not to reveal his donors since 1966??Considering that there wasn't a Presidential election in 1966....... DOTDOTDOTDOTDOT......... too much Rojo, not enough Disco, darling.

[Back]

I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask someone who is claiming everyone (in a particular group) is so greedy and selfish with their money.

Why you so angry lately Back? Need a hug big guy?

Its an election year. I can only take so much bullshit before my "revolutionary" comes out.

[WRoss]

If Strom Thurman can flip parties (four of them!) why can't Mitt Romney?

[AnticorRifling]

please, share with me what reality is. What is so bad about putting "US" above "ME"?

The reality is that the party of old white men believes everyone else is an interloper, "taking" from what they have "earned." Socially they exclude gays, immigrants, women, and every other American not sharing the same skin color. Reality is they are not attracting a vast majority of these demographics because they would have to change their policies to include the interests of these people, and that is not all about money.

That's kind of like saying the democrat party is just a bunch of leeches that expects everything to be free because feeling good is more important than working hard. Reality is they are not attracting hard working Americans because those hard workers do not want to shoulder even more burden to make sure that hippies can be even lazier.

US over ME isn't the issue. Give to US because YOU have it and WE wants it (my precious?).

[Back]

That's kind of like saying the democrat party is just a bunch of leeches that expects everything to be free because feeling good is more important than working hard. Reality is they are not attracting hard working Americans because those hard workers do not want to shoulder even more burden to make sure that hippies can be even lazier.

US over ME isn't the issue. Give to USE because YOU have it and WE wants it (my precious?).

I think you are completely off base. Its the working class who demands accountability and true reward for hard work. The working class are the people who make our nation strong. Without the working class you have a frail umbrella of weakness.

[AnticorRifling]

I'm not saying they don't. But you also have a large group of perceived free loading hug it out and lay about fucks that want the working class to go all horse in Animal Farm and just work harder until they are glue so that they can join the pigs in the house.

[Back]

I'm not saying they don't. But you also have a large group of perceived free loading hug it out and lay about fucks that want the working class to go all horse in Animal Farm and just work harder until they are glue so that they can join the pigs in the house.

I don't think we are watching the same movie.

You are pointing at minutia. Reality is a little further removed from that fallacy.

[Allereli]

That's kind of like saying the democrat party is just a bunch of leeches that expects everything to be free because feeling good is more important than working hard. Reality is they are not attracting hard working Americans because those hard workers do not want to shoulder even more burden to make sure that hippies can be even lazier.

US over ME isn't the issue. Give to USE because YOU have it and WE wants it (my precious?).

I actually agree that it's too easy to get unemployment and welfare. I don't believe everything should be free, I believe corporations should be more responsible for the people who work for them. I also believe we should have safeguards for the people who are unable to help themselves, especially in natural disasters. And I believe we need rules to make sure things like Enron, Worldcom, and the mortgage scandal (falsified documents, anyone?) can't happen.

[4a6c1]

1960something.

[Allereli]

In every discussion I have about political issues and "reality," I'm the one stating facts, and specific issues we've had in the past that I would not like to see repeated again. I'm not seeing the same thing from the other side. All I see is McCarthy-era witch hunt rhetoric.

[Tgo01]

In every discussion I have about political issues and "reality," I'm the one stating facts, and specific issues we've had in the past that I would not like to see repeated again. I'm not seeing the same thing from the other side. All I see is McCarthy-era witch hunt rhetoric.

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling at this point :/

[Parkbandit]

I actually agree that it's too easy to get unemployment and welfare. I don't believe everything should be free, I believe corporations should be more responsible for the people who work for them. I also believe we should have safeguards for the people who are unable to help themselves, especially in natural disasters. And I believe we need rules to make sure things like Enron, Worldcom, and the mortgage scandal (falsified documents, anyone?) can't happen.

You are missing a couple of things from your "deep thoughts" list.. like you believe it's wrong to steal from little old ladies.. or that beating puppies with baseball bats is bad.

[Back]

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling at this point :/

Because you have no basis in reality.

How can we measure reality? I am open and willing to answer that question.

[Allereli]

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling at this point :/

well I haven't seen your financial bracket, choice charities, or percentage paid in taxes yet, or any specific issue that you base your vote on.

[Parkbandit]

In every discussion I have about political issues and "reality," I'm the one stating facts, and specific issues we've had in the past that I would not like to see repeated again. I'm not seeing the same thing from the other side. All I see is McCarthy-era witch hunt rhetoric.

lulwut?


The reality is that the party of old white men believes everyone else is an interloper, "taking" from what they have "earned." Socially they exclude gays, immigrants, women, and every other American not sharing the same skin color. Reality is they are not attracting a vast majority of these demographics because they would have to change their policies to include the interests of these people, and that is not all about money.

You are in the same "reality" and spout the same "facts" as a couple of other wackos here... which is to say I just hope you actually get outside and experience some real reality someday soon.

[Allereli]

You are in the same "reality" and spout the same "facts" as a couple of other wackos here... which is to say I just hope you actually get outside and experience some real reality someday soon.

please describe your "real reality" if it is different than mine.

[4a6c1]

.....PB that group of wackos is getting bigger and bigger. There are going to be quite a few more presidential elections. It's better for your blood pressure if you just don't take them too personally.

[Tgo01]

well I haven't seen your financial bracket, choice charities, or percentage paid in taxes yet, or any specific issue that you base your vote on.

I just meant your assertion that "the other side" doesn't care about preventing the same bad things from happening again or the "other side" never backs up their arguments with facts. Pretty cool how you can just toss aside an entire political party with the wave of a hand like that.

But if you must know I'm a well hung billionaire with wings.

[Allereli]

I just meant your assertion that "the other side" doesn't care about preventing the same bad things from happening again or the "other side" never backs up their arguments with facts. Pretty cool how you can just toss aside an entire political party with the wave of a hand like that.

But if you must know I'm a well hung billionaire with wings.

Yes, the thread is about the Republican National Convention. The Republicans have chosen Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to oppose President Obama. I am basing my opinions stated here of Republicans on Romney and Ryan's records, and what happened during previous Republican presidencies. Please tell me how you care and what you care about, and how their record reflects that.

Please don't give me birther talk, "anti-colonialism" or another other extremist talk. Give me examples of your life and how Obama has been bad for you.

[Tgo01]

Please don't give me birther talk, "anti-colonialism" or another other extremist talk. Give me examples of your life and how Obama has been bad for you.

That's a pretty selfish attitude for someone who claims to care about "us" so much.

[Allereli]

That's a pretty selfish attitude for someone who claims to care about "us" so much.

wut?

no really, how does asking about your life condition make me selfish?

[Parkbandit]

please describe your "real reality" if it is different than mine.

Well, given that you believe the Republican Party only has whites, straight, old men in it might have been a big clue. I mean, even if you had no idea (which isn't a stretch it seems), all you would have to do is look at the 2010 census data to see how ignorant of a "fact" you're trying to pass off as a real fact.

[Androidpk]

That's a pretty selfish attitude for someone who claims to care about "us" so much.

Sounds like you're the one doing the trolling here, pal.

[AnticorRifling]

I don't think we are watching the same movie.

You are pointing at minutia. Reality is a little further removed from that fallacy.

Yeah I remember when Occupy sit around and do nothing didn't happen either...

[Tgo01]

wut?

Shouldn't I be more worried about how Obama has been bad for "us" and not me? Isn't that the type of attitude you hate? :/


Sounds like you're the one doing the trolling here, pal.

Actually, no. Shouldn't people vote on who is best for the country? Not who is best for "me"?

[Wrathbringer]

Yes, the thread is about the Republican National Convention. The Republicans have chosen Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to oppose President Obama. I am basing my opinions stated here of Republicans on Romney and Ryan's records, and what happened during previous Republican presidencies. Please tell me how you care and what you care about, and how their record reflects that.

Please don't give me birther talk, "anti-colonialism" or another other extremist talk. Give me examples of your life and how Obama has been bad for you.

I'd be more interested to hear personal examples of how Obama has been good for you.

[Allereli]

Well, given that you believe the Republican Party only has whites, straight, old men in it might have been a big clue. I mean, even if you had no idea (which isn't a stretch it seems), all you would have to do is look at the 2010 census data to see how ignorant of a "fact" you're trying to pass off as a real fact.




Exit polls from 2008 showed that 90 percent of GOP voters were white, a homogeneity that has been consistent for more than 30 years, even as the percentage of the electorate that is white has fallen.

Nonwhite voters favored Obama over Romney by better than three to one in a Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll from early August; 74 percent of Latino voters and 90 percent of African Americans backed Obama.

from the WP article. but I'm open to other statistics you can offer.

[AnticorRifling]

so because they are white they are also old, straight, and only care about money?

[Tgo01]

so because they are white they are also old, straight, and only care about money?

They're also men too apparently. No more white chicks.

[Allereli]

I'd be more interested to hear personal examples of how Obama has been good for you.

Living in the DC area, I always felt Bush had taken a lot that was special about the District and moved it to Texas. The Obamas really emphasize that they are our neighbors. They try local restaurants, shop in the same shopping centers, and really share in the experience of what is good about living here. Also, Obama is not given any credit for focusing on road renewal. One of his campaign promises was to rebuild bridges and roads and while the traffic is annoying, it's really much needed and we will see benefits for years to come.

Many of my friends and family are gay, and I feel like they are on a better path to achieving their full rights with Obama as president. While I know DADT was a Clinton-era law, people took it to the extreme and did all they could to out anyone who was suspicious, doing great harm to our national security.

As an atheist, I feel more comfortable with what seems like more of a separation between church and state. There is not much freedom of religion for a free thinking humanist.

As someone with an interest in international affairs, I believe we are much better off diplomatically than we were under Bush. There have been a lot of missteps in handling of the wars, but they were not his wars to begin with, I don't see any real solution in either Iraq or Afghanistan, we're fucked no matter what, but we could be more fucked than we are now.

I very much appreciate Michelle Obama as a woman and her efforts to get kids to eat healthy. Nutrition is an extremely important factor in health and the more preventative health measures we take, the less we need to spend on healthcare.

I'm still awaiting any specifics from you guys.

[Tgo01]

As an atheist, I feel more comfortable with what seems like more of a separation between church and state. There is not much freedom of religion for a free thinking humanist.

Can you explain this more please?

[Allereli]

Can you explain this more please?

no, only if you give me specifics on your end.

[Tgo01]

no, only if you give me specifics on your end.

You mean we can just totally make up shit and it'll fly? Sweet.

I felt the chances of a Martian invasion were lower under Bush than Obama.

[Allereli]

You mean we can just totally make up shit and it'll fly? Sweet.

I felt safer about Martians invading Earth under Bush than I am under Obama.

this is what I'm talking about, I still don't see any specific mentions of any programs, any policies, or any sort of facts relating to your daily life.

[Tgo01]

this is what I'm talking about, I still don't see any specific mentions of any programs, any policies, or any sort of facts relating to your daily life.

You have to admit it's pretty funny that someone claims they always rely on facts when they speak about these matters then you say something like:


Living in the DC area, I always felt Bush had taken a lot that was special about the District and moved it to Texas. The Obamas really emphasize that they are our neighbors. They try local restaurants, shop in the same shopping centers, and really share in the experience of what is good about living here.

Which is 100% opinion.


Many of my friends and family are gay, and I feel like they are on a better path to achieving their full rights with Obama as president. While I know DADT was a Clinton-era law, people took it to the extreme and did all they could to out anyone who was suspicious, doing great harm to our national security.

100% opinion, especially considering Obama's stance when campaigning in 2008 was marriage was between a man and a woman.


As an atheist, I feel more comfortable with what seems like more of a separation between church and state. There is not much freedom of religion for a free thinking humanist.

I don't even know where you're coming from with this because you don't even mention how you arrived at this opinion.


As someone with an interest in international affairs, I believe we are much better off diplomatically than we were under Bush. There have been a lot of missteps in handling of the wars, but they were not his wars to begin with, I don't see any real solution in either Iraq or Afghanistan, we're fucked no matter what, but we could be more fucked than we are now.

More opinion.


I very much appreciate Michelle Obama as a woman and her efforts to get kids to eat healthy. Nutrition is an extremely important factor in health and the more preventative health measures we take, the less we need to spend on healthcare.

This is about the only factual thing you posted.

[Androidpk]

this is what I'm talking about, I still don't see any specific mentions of any programs, any policies, or any sort of facts relating to your daily life.

If you are expecting a serious answer from him you're wasting your time.

[Allereli]

If you are expecting a serious answer from him you're wasting your time.

pretty much. Still waiting on those details.

[Allereli]

100% opinion, especially considering Obama's stance when campaigning in 2008 was marriage was between a man and a woman.


and it has since changed, and DOMA is on the list of things to be repealed. Gays can also now serve openly in the military. FACT

[msconstrew]

I concur that republican administrations, as a whole, are extremely hostile to atheists and other forms of non-Christian religion. I think you merely need to look at the religious support given to the republican party to recognize that republicanism has centered itself around the religious right in order to garner votes. By doing so, they explicitly and implicitly reject and "other" those that aren't Christian/religious; hence, the idea that atheists are, by definition, people who want to take people's religious freedoms away. That could not be further from the truth.

[Jarvan]

Spite.

Every human, every tribe, every race, every nation works its way towards a larger group... until someone tells them to, at which point they happily engage in generations of vendetta. Scotland, Ireland, Israel, break your backs O Israel.

Also, how far back Ukraine are you? I used to think I was Polish ancestry on that side, then I found out I might be technically Lithuanian or Russian (turn of the century was a vague time for the region).


Great Grandfather came from Ukraine. Granted, I don't directly consider myself it, cause I am a mutt now. Ukrainian, Irish, German, Little English and tiny bit American Indian, so little I wouldn't really claim I am. Beauty of America is technically, non of us are Americans really, our roots are always from other Countries. But it's what we think of ourselves that matter. When you think of yourself as a race first and foremost, your just trying to segment yourself for one reason or another.

I guess to me it all comes down to a simple question, Where are you from? If you answer America/U.S./City in U.S. Good for you, but then don't go and say I am an -insert other country/nationality- American. Just stick with American and be proud of that.

[~Rocktar~]

The Obamas really emphasize that they are our neighbors. They try local restaurants, shop in the same shopping centers, and really share in the experience of what is good about living here.

There is something good about living in DC? Now living around DC, in north Virginia, some places in Maryland sure, actually IN DC?!?!

[Parkbandit]

I'm still awaiting any specifics from you guys.

You can spout your nonsense opinions and call them "reality" and "facts" (I don't think you've posted one yet) but you demand specifics in return?

You be trippin'.

Hard.

[Wrathbringer]

Living in the DC area, I always felt Bush had taken a lot that was special about the District and moved it to Texas. The Obamas really emphasize that they are our neighbors. They try local restaurants, shop in the same shopping centers, and really share in the experience of what is good about living here. Also, Obama is not given any credit for focusing on road renewal. One of his campaign promises was to rebuild bridges and roads and while the traffic is annoying, it's really much needed and we will see benefits for years to come.

Many of my friends and family are gay, and I feel like they are on a better path to achieving their full rights with Obama as president. While I know DADT was a Clinton-era law, people took it to the extreme and did all they could to out anyone who was suspicious, doing great harm to our national security.

As an atheist, I feel more comfortable with what seems like more of a separation between church and state. There is not much freedom of religion for a free thinking humanist.

As someone with an interest in international affairs, I believe we are much better off diplomatically than we were under Bush. There have been a lot of missteps in handling of the wars, but they were not his wars to begin with, I don't see any real solution in either Iraq or Afghanistan, we're fucked no matter what, but we could be more fucked than we are now.

I very much appreciate Michelle Obama as a woman and her efforts to get kids to eat healthy. Nutrition is an extremely important factor in health and the more preventative health measures we take, the less we need to spend on healthcare.

I'm still awaiting any specifics from you guys.

So what I'm getting here is, he hangs out with you like Bush didn't. Ok... You "feel like" gays are an a path to liberty based on dadt. That's potential good for you, not good that he's done for you as of now. He promised to address civil liberties for gays during the campaign and then didn't, you know. Obama hasn't done anything that I'm aware of to strengthen the separation between church and state, but it just "seems" that way to you. Ok... Better off diplomatically, but you admit "a lot of missteps..." and mention nothing specific that he's done for us on that front, just stating "it could be worse". Ok... So you're telling me he's earned your vote for another FOUR YEARS based on these four things? Ok... Appreciate the response.

Edit: If you value diplomacy, civil rights and separation of church and state as well as fiscal responsibility, you should check out the Libertarian Party. I think you'll find it's a better option than either of the two main stream parties.

[Allereli]

So what I'm getting here is, he hangs out with you like Bush didn't. Ok... You "feel like" gays are an a path to liberty based on dadt. That's potential good for you, not good that he's done for you as of now. He promised to address civil liberties for gays during the campaign and then didn't, you know. Obama hasn't done anything that I'm aware of to strengthen the separation between church and state, but it just "seems" that way to you. Ok... Better off diplomatically, but you admit "a lot of missteps..." and mention nothing specific that he's done for us on that front, just stating "it could be worse". Ok... So you're telling me he's earned your vote for another FOUR YEARS based on these four things? Ok... Appreciate the response.

Edit: If you value diplomacy, civil rights and separation of church and state as well as fiscal responsibility, you should check out the Libertarian Party. I think you'll find it's a better option than either of the two main stream parties.

fact: Bush moved almost every state dinner to Texas.

I still haven't heard anyone share anything about their life and how politics and policy affects it. Roads being built are a FACT. I drive on them.

Obama doesn't use terms like "Holy War" and shove his religion down my throat. FACT.

The Bush's didn't do anything to promote DC area tourism. FACT.

I am well aware of Libertarians and am a fan of Bill Maher. But the reality is we have a two party government and I would rather keep the side I more closely agree with stronger than split it and make the neocons more powerful.

Ryan wants to ban all abortion and Romney wants to end all funding for Planned Parenthood. FACT.

[Allereli]

So what I'm getting here is, he hangs out with you like Bush didn't. Ok... You "feel like" gays are an a path to liberty based on dadt. That's potential good for you, not good that he's done for you as of now. He promised to address civil liberties for gays during the campaign and then didn't, you know. Obama hasn't done anything that I'm aware of to strengthen the separation between church and state, but it just "seems" that way to you. Ok... Better off diplomatically, but you admit "a lot of missteps..." and mention nothing specific that he's done for us on that front, just stating "it could be worse". Ok... So you're telling me he's earned your vote for another FOUR YEARS based on these four things? Ok... Appreciate the response.

Edit: If you value diplomacy, civil rights and separation of church and state as well as fiscal responsibility, you should check out the Libertarian Party. I think you'll find it's a better option than either of the two main stream parties.

OK, so why don't you do the same thing and share specifics about your life and how it has been made worse by Obama's policies.

Incremental change made with more forethought is better than drastic reactionary change.

Obama took way too long to get around to civil rights, I have written to him about it, he did take 3 years to work to stabilize the economy. Congress is the one holding it back.

[Wrathbringer]

fact: Bush moved almost every state dinner to Texas.

I still haven't heard anyone share anything about their life and how politics and policy affects it. Roads being built are a FACT. I drive on them.

Obama doesn't use terms like "Holy War" and shove his religion down my throat. FACT.

The Bush's didn't do anything to promote DC area tourism. FACT.

I am well aware of Libertarians and am a fan of Bill Maher. But the reality is we have a two party government and I would rather keep the side I more closely agree with stronger than split it and make the neocons more powerful.

Ryan wants to ban all abortion and Romney wants to end all funding for Planned Parenthood. FACT.

You don't believe that policy and politics impact our lives or am I misunderstanding you there? A simple example (and one of the most important, imo): The value of the dollar has decreased 33% since 2000, attributed 100% to policy and politics. Things cost more, and our dollars are worth less.

[Androidpk]

You don't believe that policy and politics impact our lives or am I misunderstanding you there? A simple example (and one of the most important, imo): The value of the dollar has decreased 33% since 2000, attributed 100% to policy and politics. Things cost more, and our dollars are worth less.

You can thank the federal reserve for that.

[Atlanteax]

You can thank the federal reserve for that.

Yes, it has 0% to do with the gigantic federal debt which is 'backed by the full faith of the U.S. government'.

[Wrathbringer]

Yes, it has 0% to do with the gigantic federal debt which is 'backed by the full faith of the U.S. government'.

Up 11 trillion dollars in the same time frame, but you won't hear either of the mainstream candidates discussing these things. They'll be too busy talking about the fringe "hot button" issues that actually bring voters to the polls. :jerkit:

[Fallen]

What's also worrying is I haven't heard any discussion of the wars, either. Is it just assumed that the deadlines/timetables set by Bush/Obama are largely what Romney plans to follow as well? All i've heard militarily so far is that Rebublicans look to want to bring back DADT in some form and make more of an effort to keep women out of combat MOS's.

[Androidpk]

Yes, it has 0% to do with the gigantic federal debt which is 'backed by the full faith of the U.S. government'.

How exactly do you think the US is able to spend so much? Again, the federal reserve.

[Fallen]

My google is weak. Can someone post a link to the planks of the republican platform?

[Tgo01]

My google is weak. Can someone post a link to the planks of the republican platform?

I can give you the rundown.

Destroy our economy.
Put women back in the kitchen.
Hand over control of our country to the Pope.
Round up gays and force them into one of those camps that "cures" gays.
Reduce tax rates of millionaires to 0% and raise tax rates of everyone else to 100%.
Remove any and all social programs.

Pretty sure I got everything. Vote Republican!

[Parkbandit]

You should have put the word 'FACT' after every one... because that alone makes them facts.

[WRoss]

Romney's platform is going to be much different than what most of Congress will do. I'd pay attention to Congress because they'll still be there after November and they run the show.

[Allereli]

You should have put the word 'FACT' after every one... because that alone makes them facts.

ok, so where is your list of what's important to you in your life and how Obama has ruined it?

[diethx]

ok, so where is your list of what's important to you in your life and how Obama has ruined it?

I hope you aren't expecting a serious answer. Remember where you are.

[Tgo01]

ok, so where is your list of what's important to you in your life and how Obama has ruined it?

Our economy is still shit and gas is still 4 dollars a gallon.

At least when Bush single handedly put us into a recession he had the decency to lower gas prices at the same time.

[diethx]

Our economy is still shit and gas is still 4 dollars a gallon.

At least when Bush single handedly put us into a recession he had the decency to lower gas prices at the same time.

You don't think Congress holds any of the blame for the situation our country is in?

[Parkbandit]

ok, so where is your list of what's important to you in your life and how Obama has ruined it?

Actually, Obama has been great for me personally. Green energy, cheap labor, low housing prices, low interest rates, etc...

The only negative I can actually come up with is that the lower and middle classes don't have enough money to pay the rent I would like to receive from
my real estate or to make their homes more energy efficient.. so I'm having to deal with big houses and receive less rent than I planned on.

I'm pretty much recession proof because of what I do and my ability to save money.

But I'm the exception, not the norm.

[Androidpk]

Our economy is still shit and gas is still 4 dollars a gallon.

At least when Bush single handedly put us into a recession he had the decency to lower gas prices at the same time.

The economy has steadily improved since Obama took office and the numbers back that up. As far as gas goes the President of the United States does not determine how much gasoline costs at the pump nor anywhere else.

[Parkbandit]

The economy has steadily improved since Obama took office and the numbers back that up. As far as gas goes the President of the United States does not determine how much gasoline costs at the pump nor anywhere else.

The rate of recovery is where people focus most of their concern.

[Fallen]

My google is weak. Can someone post a link to the planks of the republican platform?

I keep trying, but I don't think there is a formalized list. Usually, when a headline references a "plank" of a party, it is in an opinion piece for/against the position. Not terribly useful. Stuff like Anti-porn planks, etc.

[Tgo01]

The economy has steadily improved since Obama took office and the numbers back that up.

The economy is in nowhere as good of shape now then it was back when gas was 4 dollars a gallon under Bush.


As far as gas goes the President of the United States does not determine how much gasoline costs at the pump nor anywhere else.

I know. I figured since we're giving Obama credit for roads being built we might as well give him blame for gas being so high.

[Androidpk]

The economy is in nowhere as good of shape now then it was back when gas was 4 dollars a gallon under Bush.

Before the economy went to shit yes. But it has been improving constantly since then.

[Fallen]

Another troubling issue for me concerning the republicans is the outright attempts at voter supression via these voter ID laws. Voter fraud does not seem to be anything approaching a serious problem, and the proposed changes definitely appear as if they will influence the vote far more than the loopholes they correct.

[ClydeR]

Clint Eastwood.

People should stop making fun of Clint Eastwood, star of Gran Torino, the 2008 film in which he defended his formerly white Detroit community from violent gangs of foreigners. Having Eastwood sit Obama down in a chair and school him about how things should be was genius. Democrats won't be able to get any big stars like that at their convention.

[ClydeR]

Marco Rubio.

Rubio does not usually have a strong stage presence, but he outperformed my expectations last night. Very good.

I heard the Romney team shaved several minutes from Rubio's speech at the last minute because they were behind schedule.

[ClydeR]

Whoever did the makeup at the convention was talented at covering up the years. Rubio looked several years younger. And Ryan looked like a teenager!

[ClydeR]

The one big disappointment of the convention is that they were not able to reschedule quite everything that had to be canceled after the hurricane disrupted things. They managed to reschedule almost everything except for Donald Trump, and they just couldn't find a new time for him.

Trump was planning to appear with an Obama impersonator. It would surely have been hilarious.

[ClydeR]

And finally Mitt Romney.

Romney gave an adequate and safe speech that lasted 45 minutes. No specifics.


But Mr. Romney uttered the word Medicare just once. He never used the terms Social Security, welfare, or entitlement.

He never mentioned Iraq or Afghanistan, nor did he use the term terrorism, although he did refer to the mission that killed Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Romney used the term health care just once, and Obamacare only twice. He said deficit and taxes just three times each, and budget just once. He never mentioned Mr. Obama’s stimulus package, nor the federal bailouts of the financial sector and the auto industry.

Mr. Romney never used the terms gay or abortion, although he did refer to the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage. He twice referred to immigrants, but never discussed his immigration policy.

Mr. Romney only once mentioned his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, and then only to describe how he had chosen a woman as his Lieutenant Governor and appointed women to key cabinet positions.

Mr. Romney never mentioned the Olympics. He did describe his business experience at some length, although he only twice invoked the name of the company where he built his career, Bain Capital.

He even avoided some of his campaign’s favorite catchphrases, like “We Built It,” the theme of the second night of the Tampa convention.

Instead, Mr. Romney’s strategy was pretty clear. He was seeking to fulfill the role of the generic Republican — a safe and unobjectionable alternative with a nice family and a nice career – and whose main credential is that he is not Mr. Obama, the Democratic president with tepid approval ratings and middling economic numbers.

More... (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/in-prudent-speech-romney-seeks-role-as-generic-republican/)


We'll hear more about Romney's failure to mention the troops, like this from Bill Kristol..


The United States has some 68,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan. Over two thousand Americans have died in the more than ten years of that war, a war Mitt Romney has supported. Yet in his speech accepting his party's nomination to be commander in chief, Mitt Romney said not a word about the war in Afghanistan. Nor did he utter a word of appreciation to the troops fighting there, or to those who have fought there. Nor for that matter were there thanks for those who fought in Iraq, another conflict that went unmentioned.

Leave aside the question of the political wisdom of Romney's silence, and the opportunities it opens up for President Obama next week. What about the civic propriety of a presidential nominee failing even to mention, in his acceptance speech, a war we're fighting and our young men and women who are fighting it? Has it ever happened that we've been at war and a presidential nominee has ignored, in this kind of major and formal speech, the war and our warriors?

More... (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/what-war_651279.html)

[Parkbandit]

Another troubling issue for me concerning the republicans is the outright attempts at voter supression via these voter ID laws. Voter fraud does not seem to be anything approaching a serious problem, and the proposed changes definitely appear as if they will influence the vote far more than the loopholes they correct.

4006

Not sure if this will work or not.. but I just happen to be at a run down apartment complex and see the same sort of sign I always see. Are you suggesting this complex is trying to suppress the amount of customers they rent to?

[Parkbandit]

Hey.. Didn't know you can upload pictures so easily with TapTalk.

[Fallen]

4006

Not sure if this will work or not.. but I just happen to be at a run down apartment complex and see the same sort of sign I always see. Are you suggesting this complex is trying to suppress the amount of customers they rent to?

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Would you argue that the Republicans are largely not attempting to suppress the vote with their recent voter ID push?

[Tgo01]

I hear the dictatorship/police state known as Canada has voter ID laws.

[Allereli]

Trump was planning to appear with an Obama impersonator. It would surely have been hilarious.

that would have been awesome

[Fallen]

I hear the dictatorship/police state known as Canada has voter ID laws.

Does Canada have a national ID, or do they do it by province? I could see a push for ID if there was a similar push to have a Federal ID issued. Again, it seems like that is a dodge of the point. It is a blatant attempt to suppress votes.

[Allereli]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Would you argue that the Republicans are largely not attempting to suppress the vote with their recent voter ID push?

some admit they are http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o32tF-S6K60&feature=share

if you live in PA and need, or know anyone who needs an ID http://baldwin-whitehall.patch.com/articles/schmotzer-s-office-to-assist-with-obtaining-voter-ids

[Androidpk]

Voter fraud is ruining this country!!!!111

[Parkbandit]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Would you argue that the Republicans are largely not attempting to suppress the vote with their recent voter ID push?

Yes. You are making the claim that there is very little voter fraud, so the voter ID laws are to suppress voter turnout.

I am making the claim that the very few individuals that do not have an ID but want to vote is extremely small... and that living in this country requires that you identify yourself from time to time.

[Tgo01]

Does Canada have a national ID, or do they do it by province? I could see a push for ID if there was a similar push to have a Federal ID issued. Again, it seems like that is a dodge of the point. It is a blatant attempt to suppress votes.

I thought we wanted to be more like Canada?

If these voter ID laws are an attempt by Republicans to suppress votes then how do you explain blue states (http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx) such as Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Washington and Hawaii having voter ID laws?

[Parkbandit]

I thought we wanted to be more like Canada?

If these voter ID laws are an attempt by Republicans to suppress votes then how do you explain blue states (http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx) such as Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Washington and Hawaii having voter ID laws?

Infiltration by the evil TEA PARTY!!!!

[Keller]

Clint Eastwood.

Having Eastwood sit Obama down in a chair and school him about how things should be was genius.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/315071_446987538679940_1766224554_n.jpg

[AnticorRifling]

LOL exactly what I thought of too Keller. I was like Aww Clint doesn't know where he is.

[Latrinsorm]

Shouldn't I be more worried about how Obama has been bad for "us" and not me? Isn't that the type of attitude you hate? :/



Actually, no. Shouldn't people vote on who is best for the country? Not who is best for "me"?I think it would be pretty interesting to see someone do an analysis of our Presidential electoral system as a free market, under which of course the best group solution would be for each individual to pursue their own selfish interests. I don't think it would fly, but the Congressional system...
I know. I figured since we're giving Obama credit for roads being built we might as well give him blame for gas being so high.The President didn't build Exxon-Mobil.
Edit: If you value diplomacy, civil rights and separation of church and state as well as fiscal responsibility, you should check out the Libertarian Party. I think you'll find it's a better option than either of the two main stream parties.Spoken like a true former semi-conservative.

[Tgo01]

The President didn't build Exxon-Mobil.

Are you suggesting the president builds roads?

[Fallen]

I thought we wanted to be more like Canada?

If these voter ID laws are an attempt by Republicans to suppress votes then how do you explain blue states (http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx) such as Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, Washington and Hawaii having voter ID laws?

It appears as if the states you mention fall under the section of Non-Strict Non-Photo ID

[Latrinsorm]

Are you suggesting the president builds roads?I didn't see him very clearly, but there aren't any black men in Connecticut suburbs, so yes. The President personally builds roads.

[Tgo01]

It appears as if the states you mention fall under the section of Non-Strict Non-Photo ID

So your only problem is with photo ID laws? Do voter ID laws disenfranchise voters or not?

[Fallen]

I think the key word is strict. Some of these laws hold up in court, some have been overturned or otherwise ruled as overtly aimed at suppressing segments of the population. I'm not sure if you're being serious and actually believe that many instances of these laws aren't attempting to suppress votes, or you're just trolling political threads in general.

[Tgo01]

I think the key word is strict. Some of these laws hold up in court, some have been overturned or otherwise ruled as overtly aimed at suppressing segments of the population. I'm not sure if you're being serious and actually believe that many instances of these laws aren't attempting to suppress votes, or you're just trolling political threads in general.

I'm just trying to understand your argument here.

You said voter ID laws are being pushed through by Republicans who want to suppress people who vote Democrat.

I point out that several blue states have voter ID laws.

Your argument now seems to be that only photo ID laws are being used to disenfranchise people. That's a pretty convenient and narrow position to take.

[Fallen]

Do we know when those laws were enacted? Do we know how they differ from those cases that have been successfully held up in court? Do we know how studies have shown which types of laws are disproportionately shown to have a likely impact on voters more likely to vote democrat?I imagine I could put together a convincing body of evidence indicating a very real effort to suppress voters in republican states. Attempts which typically differ from those found in "blue" states. Not that democrats are above such things, simply that it isn't feasible to suppress the vote in the other direction.

Yet i feel that would be a waste of time. You'd still likely argue the point, despite any evidence one might present to the contrary. You've seen the videos of a republican at the state level claiming the laws will "hand the election to Romney". They've been posted here. It is also extremely clear that vote fraud is a basically non-existent problem in this country, yet voter suppression has certainly been a very real problem throughout this nation's history.

The primary question I would need answered before I put any further time into trying to have a legitimate discussion on the matter would be: Do you believe there has been an effort in Republican held states to suppress or otherwise disenfranchise voters using Voter ID legislation?

[Tgo01]

Do we know when those laws were enacted?

Yes, the years are listed on the link I gave you.


I imagine I could put together a convincing body of evidence indicating a very real effort to suppress voters in republican states.

Sounds good. Let's hear it.


Attempts which typically differ from those found in "blue" states. Not that democrats are above such things, simply that it isn't feasible to suppress the vote in the other direction.

It's not possible for Democrats to attempt to suppress Republican votes? And you asked if I was trolling.


Yet i feel that would be a waste of time. You'd still likely argue the point, despite any evidence one might present to the contrary.

Another convenient argument. "I could show you exactly how wrong you are and how I am 100% correct but I won't. Just trust me on this."

At the very least I would love to hear your reasoning on why it's not disenfranchisement when Democratic states do it but it is when Republican states do it.


The primary question I would need answered before I put any further time into trying to have a legitimate discussion on the matter would be: Do you believe there has been an effort in Republican held states to suppress or otherwise disenfranchise voters using Voter ID legislation?

I'm sure there has been an effort somewhere. I don't think every single law or person who voted for said law has been trying to suppress votes. If I did that would mean I believe Democrats are doing it too, and apparently Democrats can't suppress votes.

[Fallen]

I have honestly not seen any reports of democrats attempting to suppress votes. If you've links to the stories I'd gladly read them. As I said, I don't think it isn't an issue due to democrats being above it. I simply believe it would be difficult to enact a law that disproportionally impacts those that vote republican over those that vote democrat. The only thing I can recall off-hand is an argument that early voting is traditionally right leaning, but that was in relation to the right not moving against combating fraud via that means.


Another convenient argument. "I could show you exactly how wrong you are and how I am 100% correct but I won't. Just trust me on this."

At the very least I would love to hear your reasoning on why it's not disenfranchisement when Democratic states do it but it is when Republican states do it.

I don't think I could convince someone on the PC 100% about any given topic, especially in relation to politics. You've stated that you believe there is an effort by republicans to suppress votes, so the point of contention is that democrats have been doing it as well. As i've said, i've never seen accusations to that effect, but that most certainly doesn't mean they don't exist.

There is also the issue of attempting to stop a crime that basically doesn't take place with anything approaching regularity. That should anger people on both sides simply due to the amount of money being wasted to guard against a problem that just ...isn't there in a meaningful way. I'm sure millions have been spent on this issue, and that's just sad, voter suppression/disenfranchisement or no. I'm just waiting for someone to say something to the effect of, "Oh, so crime shouldn't be fought if only a few people do it" or some other such asinine point to obscure the issue. What happened to all the government spending hawks on the PC?

[Allereli]

I have honestly not seen any reports of democrats attempting to suppress votes. If you've links to the stories I'd gladly read them. As I said, I don't think it isn't an issue due to democrats being above it. I simply believe it would be difficult to enact a law that disproportionally impacts those that vote republican over those that vote democrat. The only thing I can recall off-hand is an argument that early voting is traditionally right leaning, but that was in relation to the right not moving against combating fraud via that means.

I think there were some gerrymandering cases, but both sides attempt that.

[Fallen]

I think there were some gerrymandering cases, but both sides attempt that.

I would say gerrymandering is a separate issue, as the question here is Voter Identification laws and disenfranchisement. As you said, both sides engage in that process. I'm looking for voter ID laws which suppress/disenfranchise republican voters. Dragging gerrymandering into the debate just muddies the issue without adding anything meaningful.

[Tgo01]

As I said, I don't think it isn't an issue due to democrats being above it. I simply believe it would be difficult to enact a law that disproportionally impacts those that vote republican over those that vote democrat.

On average don't more Republican voters cast absentee ballots than Democrats?


I don't think I could convince someone on the PC 100% about any given topic, especially in relation to politics.

You're probably right. But isn't the whole point of a forum to have a discussion? So let's discuss.


You've stated that you believe there is an effort by republicans to suppress votes, so the point of contention is that democrats have been doing it as well.

That's not what I said at all. I don't believe Democrats are trying to suppress votes. I just want to see how you feel it is disenfranchisement when Republican states pass laws yet when Democrat states pass the exact same laws it's not disenfranchisement. Or I would like to know why you feel photo ID laws are disenfranchisement but other voter ID laws aren't. Your position has to be one of those two.


There is also the issue of attempting to stop a crime that basically doesn't take place with anything approaching regularity.

So we should fault our government for thinking ahead for once? Do we wait until (if?) voter fraud becomes a problem before we attempt to tackle the issue?

[Warriorbird]

I think there were some gerrymandering cases, but both sides attempt that.

It's repulsive when either party does it. The board Republicans like to stuff their fingers in their ears about it, but it's clearly a fine tactic for them up to the point that they're actually attempting to get the Voting Rights Act of 1965 overturned:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012-Platform-Final.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57399011-503544/rick-perry-well-take-voter-id-case-to-supreme-court/
http://www.firedupmissouri.com/content/tood-akin-time-second-look-federal-civil-rights-and-voting-rights-laws

The Florida stuff is even worse.

Democrats did it throughout the South until that Act came into play. A more recent Democratic example would be slashing the tires of Republican "Get Out The Vote" cars in Wisconsin:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050829020422/http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2005/01/24/national1242EST0521.DTL
http://web.archive.org/web/20060503003521/http://wfrv.com/topstories/local_story_116123954.html

And the Democrats have been accused of attempting to entirely remove a Republican from the ballot in Harris County Texas:

http://blog.chron.com/bigjolly/2012/08/harris-county-democratic-party-vs-lloyd-oliver-vote-suppression-attempt/

Charles Rangel (surprise surprise) is accused of having done it too: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/02/rangels-democratic-opponent-claiming-voter-suppression-in-contested-primary/

In addition, all Democratic attempts at mucking with absentee ballots are effectively vote suppression, just like the Republican "voter id" laws.

[Fallen]

Thanks for that information, WB. It is nasty business whenever it is done, i've only seen it being presented as an issue in the debate of Voter Identification, but as shown the tactics may differ but the attempt has the same goal.

[Tgo01]

It's repulsive when either party does it. The board Republicans like to stuff their fingers in their ears about it, but it's clearly a fine tactic for them up to the point that they're actually attempting to get the Voting Rights Act of 1965 overturned:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012-Platform-Final.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57399011-503544/rick-perry-well-take-voter-id-case-to-supreme-court/
http://www.firedupmissouri.com/content/tood-akin-time-second-look-federal-civil-rights-and-voting-rights-laws

The Florida stuff is even worse.

Democrats did it throughout the South until that Act came into play. A more recent Democratic example would be slashing the tires of Republican "Get Out The Vote" cars in Wisconsin:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050829020422/http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2005/01/24/national1242EST0521.DTL
http://web.archive.org/web/20060503003521/http://wfrv.com/topstories/local_story_116123954.html

And the Democrats have been accused of attempting to entirely remove a Republican from the ballot in Harris County Texas:

http://blog.chron.com/bigjolly/2012/08/harris-county-democratic-party-vs-lloyd-oliver-vote-suppression-attempt/

Charles Rangel (surprise surprise) is accused of having done it too: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/02/rangels-democratic-opponent-claiming-voter-suppression-in-contested-primary/

In addition, all Democratic attempts at mucking with absentee ballots are effectively vote suppression, just like the Republican "voter id" laws.

You forgot that one guy who carved a backwards B into the cheek of a McCain volunteer.

[Warriorbird]

You forgot that one guy who carved a backwards B into the cheek of a McCain volunteer.

She faked that, unless you're somehow trying to be funny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Todd_mugging_hoax

[Tgo01]

She faked that, unless you're somehow trying to be funny.

Yeah I figured the backwards B bit would be a tip off. Laugh damn you!

[Warriorbird]

Vote suppression isn't terribly funny:

http://jacksonville.com/news/florida/2012-08-27/story/democratic-registration-all-dries-new-florida-laws

The fake B attack mainly sort of creeped me out.

I always found this Democratic stunt indicative of Louisiana politics though, and very funny:

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-05-21/politics/jefferson.search_1_congressman-jefferson-jefferson-aide-fbi-agents?_s=PM:POLITICS

[ClydeR]

Romney gave an adequate and safe speech that lasted 45 minutes. No specifics.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board agrees with me that Romney's convention speech lacked specifics.


The immediate media consensus, especially on the political right, seems to be that Mitt Romney "did what he had to do" in his GOP convention speech Thursday. He repaired an image battered by Obama attack ads, showed he appreciates women, defended Bain Capital and criticized President Obama more in sorrow than in anger. On to the White House!

Well, maybe. Mr. Romney's speech did hit all of those essential points, but the one thing it didn't do constitutes a major political gamble. Neither he nor the entire GOP convention made a case for his economic policy agenda. He and Paul Ryan promised to help the middle class, but they never explained other than in passing how they would do it.

More... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577623702131613774.html)

[Kembal]

And the Democrats have been accused of attempting to entirely remove a Republican from the ballot in Harris County Texas:

http://blog.chron.com/bigjolly/2012/08/harris-county-democratic-party-vs-lloyd-oliver-vote-suppression-attempt/



Er, this one is the Democratic Party removing its own nominee from the ballot, even though he won the primary. The justification is fairly stupid, but the candidate is an embarrassment, and I think they were looking to do anything to get him off.

I like how this blogger is trying to spin this as a conspiracy to suppress absentee ballots, but the Democrats really didn't want this guy affecting all the judicial elections in the county because people refused to vote straight party due to him.

[Warriorbird]

Er, this one is the Democratic Party removing its own nominee from the ballot, even though he won the primary. The justification is fairly stupid, but the candidate is an embarrassment, and I think they were looking to do anything to get him off.

I like how this blogger is trying to spin this as a conspiracy to suppress absentee ballots, but the Democrats really didn't want this guy affecting all the judicial elections in the county because people refused to vote straight party due to him.

Given everything I considered him basically a Republican, but you're right. The absentee ballot removal there likely wasn't intentional.

[ClydeR]

Clint Eastwood.

People should stop making fun of Clint Eastwood, star of Gran Torino, the 2008 film in which he defended his formerly white Detroit community from violent gangs of foreigners. Having Eastwood sit Obama down in a chair and school him about how things should be was genius. Democrats won't be able to get any big stars like that at their convention.


Although the Romney camp said at the time that they were pleased with Clint Eastwood, that does not seem to have been entirely true..


Romney’s senior strategist, Stuart Stevens, was backstage with Romney watching Eastwood, and while the Republican nominee “seemed to think it was funny — at least at first,” the authors write, Stevens was so upset by the “disaster occurring on stage” that he “excused himself, went into another room and vomited.”

More... (http://variety.com/2013/film/news/clint-eastwood-republican-convention-speech-double-down-1200796980/)