The 2008 Democrat Convention

@Cycloptichorn,

Me thinks Cyclotroll is going to very disappointed in November...

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo--

I hope you can stop categorizing all dissenting opinions as Concern Trolling. I think we're getting Okie's authentic opinion...none of us agree on everything. But, glad to get your opinions, as well.

I do think---knowing that foreign policy concerns drive voters toward the GOP--and realizing the Cold War is rearing it's ugly head as we speak--the Dems DO need to tear at McC.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Yeah, I get that these are his opinions - that's why he doesn't need to write stuff like this:

Quote:

The Obama people are taking it a bit further, and the stadium thing, in addition to the arena, some people are now speculating that it has been taken too far, and that the whole thing will backfire

Instead of 'some people' he should just say 'I' or maybe 'us Republicans.' It would be a little more accurate.

I think you'll see plenty of hits on McCain by Hillary and Bill and Barack in the next few days. If the Dem convention was all negative, you bunch would be complaining about it being all negative Laughing

I think starting off on a positive note will be exactly the right thing in retrospect - get it out of the way!

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Sorry. I'm so jazzed about the possibility of nonpartisan conversation about the convention, I'm being overbearing. I apologize.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

oe, just so you understand what I am saying, based on what she said in the speech, I would never conclude these people are angry zealots.

Okay. See, when you said that there were a "couple of statements in her speech that sort of revealed her anger and animosity toward this country", you actually meant that. What you're now saying is more along the lines of "hey, she said some things that could be interpreted in this or that way". Fair enough, but I would point out that there's a difference.

Quote:

I have concluded that from their previous statements and associations. Therefore, I read into what they say now with a better understanding of what those words really mean.

You have concluded that they are angry people from past statements, and so you're trying to read the "angry people" thing into every new statement they are making?

Wouldn't that mean that, no matter what they say, you would always come away with the conclusion that they are "angry people"? And then read that into the next statement they are making?

If that's the case: what would they have to do to change your opinion?

(Read the rest of your post, too - and thanks for taking a shot at explaining your thoughts. Didn't find anything other than what's already been said or implied in the above, so "what would they have to do" still remains my question.)

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

No, cyclops, I heard reporters and pundits saying this last night, that the stadium idea would probably be scrapped now, if they had it to do over again. I don't remember who they were, but the point is that this is not just okie's theory out here.

1 Reply

@okie,

I'm sure you did - on Fox News.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Enough with the concern trolling, Okie. You're a republican.

But that's the point, isn't it? okie is not even pretending to be a Democrat, or to be voting for Obama.

It's not really concern trolling when he says that he's a Republican, is it?

1 Reply

@old europe,

<sigh> I KNOW, that's why he doesn't need to write 'some say it's over-done.' It's not necessary.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Instead of 'some people' he should just say 'I' or maybe 'us Republicans.' It would be a little more accurate.

Oh! I get it. Yes, I agree with this completely.

Referring to "some people" when you're just voicing your own opinion is just nonsense. Hate it.

(Still not "concern trolling" though.... Wouldn't call it that...)

Edit: okay, serious cross-posting going on here. I apologize for saying stuff that's already been said... hehehe!

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

You have concluded that they are angry people from past statements, and so you're trying to read the "angry people" thing into every new statement they are making?

Wouldn't that mean that, no matter what they say, you would always come away with the conclusion that they are "angry people"? And then read that into the next statement they are making?

If that's the case: what would they have to do to change your opinion?

oe, this is just all common sense reasoning I have had to present to you, and should be intuitively obvious withoug explanation. People are judged by past words and actions, most notably actions. You cannot change a perception of someone with a single speech.

If people have been on record as doing things, and saying things, and associating with angry people, then if you listen to what they say now, you will always place into context what they are saying now, with what they have said and done in the past.

How long will it take to get a different perception, you ask, oe? Alot more, a whole lot more, than a scripted speech at the DNC, a speech and interaction following, all scripted to accomplish an impression, thats all that was, period.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

I bet you have some intriguing observations.

If he does; he's been very careful not to reveal them.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

(laughing)....I remember when I was pretty one-sided with my opinions...when the climate is super polarized, it pushes some people over in their corner. ...sort of a "bunker mentality".. I was thinking that if we could keep the ambience here welcoming and tolerant, some members may suprise us with insights...

But ya made me laugh.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

It is a shame there is no such thing as a First Ladies' debate.

I'd hate that, I don't think we should be electing first ladies and that would make it harder for women to break that glass ceiling ("not so sure about her as president, but she'd make a hell of a first lady!") if it were to become more of an official position.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

So when the republican convention comes around and a thread about it shows up on a2k you wont be able to post on it because you are a democrat. Have I got that right?

1 Reply

@rabel22,

No, you don't have that right. And what, pray tell, did I write which would have given you that impression?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@blueveinedthrobber,

VERY astute observation, Bear!

0 Replies

@Lash,

Yeah, I've of the same impression about the first nite; why not at least one attack dog? Where are the issues?

1 Reply

I have convention footage on...and the network (CNN) is heavily rotating commercials with Hillary severely criticising (my opinion) Obama and commending McC...and an arty one: about the Hillary perfume: Catharsis By Hillary...saying everything she did in the campaign, and how all she's getting is a little speech at the convention....McC and Co are going HARD for disgruntled Hillary voters....wow

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

If people have been on record as doing things, and saying things, and associating with angry people, then if you listen to what they say now, you will always place into context what they are saying now, with what they have said and done in the past.

I know. I'm not saying that your feelings are invalid.

I'm just questioning the basis of that perception. I think you have, in total, maybe three or four things that you can point to and interpret them as "hey, look, they must be really angry people".

- Some of that has been debunked (for example the whole kerfuffle about Michelle allegedly saying "whitey"... never happened).

- Some are simply guilt by association. See the whole Wright thing.

- Some requires the same kind of interpretation that you've got going on now - like the bit where Michelle Obama said "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country". That's a perfectly harmless statement - until you're reading it with the idea in mind that, hey, they must be really angry people. Then, you can interpret it differently.

But that's the problem that I'm referring to: they are angry people, because they say things. Those things are perfectly harmless, unless you read them knowing that they are angry people. And if you know that they are angry people, then what they are saying can be interpreted to show that they are angry people.
I mean, come on. Does that mean that McCain is also an angry guy, because he said he "I really didn't love America until I was deprived of her company"?

1 Reply

The 2008 Democrat Convention

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know