The Democratic Convention

You, like all the Democrats are full of excuses. You know what they say about those who are good at making excuses. They usually are good at nothing else.

Unfortunately, we only have 2 choices. One choice is the current guy who has proven he is not up to the incredible task of fixing this economy. Another choice is Romney.

So I keep waiting to hear why I should re-hire Obama and all I hear from you and the DNC are excuses, name calling and more of the same 12 year old childish commentary.

Right, accurately looking at the past is an excuse.



I really don't care if you don't want to vote for Obama; you're a committed supporter of other side, and wouldn't admit the truth about how things have gone for the last several years if your life depended on it. I will say that you, like every other Republican I run into, have nothing good to say about Romney at all, and can't seem to do much more than trash and lie about Obama. The Dems found out just how well that works, when challenging a popular incumbent, in 2004. You're about to find the same thing out here in two months.

Cycloptichorn

Many Dems think small, like you do.

You believe people are not open minded and objective.

You believe people need to be separated into nice little groups, one group Democrats, another group Republican.

You believe people need to be separated into nice little economic groups with different rules for each, one "rich" and need to pay their fair share (which has not been defined), and the other "99%" who get stuff from the rich.

You believe people need to be separated by ethnic groups with different sets of rules for each.

Unfortunately, until this mindset changes, the democratic party can never "move forward" with such backward ideas. This is why leaders like Pelosi say things like "We need to pass the health care bill to find out what is in it".

Until the current crop of dems and repubs are replaced with politicians and leaders who understand how to compromise, the country will continue the struggles.

So continue to play with your block set and keep piling on.

More from the "I'm rubber, you're glue" school of debate.

... who wants the opportunity to prove it.

welcome back chief...

I thought maybe in your extended absence you were having that mass of cerebral tissue removed from your rectum, but I see that was not the case.

oh well.

one can only hope...

Pretty witty Rockie. I read it out here and they all laughed.

I'll make a note of the idea and perhaps use it sometime. Fancied up a bit.

How can anyone who writes: , a question which contains a misrepresentation of fact and a supposition without any evidence also describe himself as being open minded?

Joe(stunningly thick)Nation

I saw the other night on CBS News that Mr Obama had carried the women's vote at the last election by a 15% margin. The men were pretty even.

Hence, and you don't need to know where the cat sat to be able to work it out, that if the men remain equally divided, i.e. neutralised, then elections will be for women on women's issues and become increasingly so as the years pass. The same route Media went a long time ago. About the time Rupert Murdoch got going.

All this talk about fixing the economy is bye-the-bye and that the economy is broken is a straw man anyway. It might be in perfect position and going exactly to plan. Poised for another Great Leap Forward and needing to shake some complacencies up a bit.

What we men should do therefore, the alternative being a disaster, is vote for the party that opposes the party in the lead on the women's vote if only to let them know that we are not a pushover. Hold our noses if we disagree with any policies it is vaguely suggesting such as starting the process of repealing Obama care on the first day in office.

Just for today. I see nothing has changed with this herd of sheep. Did you have to think long and hard to come up with the insult or are you natrually a nasty bird?

Misrepresentation is your opinion, sir. The obvious question to me still remains. I have heard nothing at the dnc which explains why Obama should be re hired. Except the obvious "their guy sucks,vote for me"

The First Lady of America took the grandstand last night in a rousing speech. This is a real convention! nothing like the circus we had in Tampa last week!

Which one of us is the sheep - the person who actually looks up facts and figures, or the one who mindlessly repeats things?

Cycloptichorn

All of this is a reminder that beauty, and the perception of skill and sagacity, are to be found in the eye of the beholder.

Cyclo is at his bombastic best, declaring that tose who see things differently from him are, without doubt, knowingly wrong in their facts and acting from some sort of undefined, but certainly bad, prejudgments.

The facts remain that (1) this is the slowest recovery from a recession we have seen in several generations,and it is unrealistic to assume that the actions the government has taken, and others it failed to take, have nothing to do with that result; (2) that we are experiencing high levels of chronic unemployment for a far longer period than we have seen in many years (and may even be approaching a second recession); (3) that we are increasing entitlements after a period in which they have grown to become, by a large measure, the dominant element in Federal outlays, and the future projections of which will certainly cause us the same crippling problems that are now facing Europe; (4) the current administration has taken or proposed no concrete action to deal with this problem, while adding to our national debt at levels not seen in several decades, and doing so at an unprecedented current level of debt relative to GDP; (5) we are asked to choose between political alternatives that promise on the one hand to further mimic the energy, tax, regulatory and labor market regulation schemes that have brought Europe to its present state vs one what proposes to reverse that.

We have also had the chance to observe an administration that admits no fault or error, despite failing to meet its pre election committments in a major way; which appears to be unduly inclined to blame all its failures on the supposed bad behavior of the party out of power; and which seeks to impose its control on growing aspects of our lives --- all while stoking the fires of envy and discord among the people.

The choice appears rather easy and straightforward to me.

of course it does, George.

who else would a wealthy elitist white guy vote for.

thanks for sharing...

You don't know me.

Does that count in your world as a racist remark?

Occam's razor says a much more likely answer is that they are simply too lazy to do any real research on the subjects they choose to comment on. However, I do believe that they know exactly how lazy they are.

Cycloptichorn

Is he wrong, though? Didn't hear you say he was wrong.

Cycloptichorn

Impressions:

dick Durbin went bat-sh*t when Brett Bair asked him about the Democrat Platform eliminating any use of the word "God." Methinks thou protests too much dick, or you were looking for Atta Boys from members of your tribe. Any bat-sh*t reaction to a question from Fox News, no matter how contrived, is applauded by Liberals.

The same question throughout the night received the same answer, albeit with less spittle flying here and there: The platform is irrelevant; no one reads it. And yet for Dem critics the irrelevant and boring Republican platform was a very clear window into the party's soul. This sort of hypocrisy never seems to bother Dems.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the personification of mendacity, claimed that she was misquoted by a conservative writer who reported that she said she had heard from the Israeli ambassador that Republican positions on Israel were dangerous to that nation. The comment drew a sharp rebuttal from the ambassador, but Debbie contended that " of course" she was misquoted.

Problems that the reporter taped her comments and it is exactly as he reported it. I can't wait for her next blatant lie: "Of course I know that the quote was accurate..."

It doesn't require biased "fact checkers" to demonstrate this woman is a blatant liar, and she is the Chairwoman of The DNC, approved for the position by Obama!

Interestingly enough, whenever I bring up her lies, the replies in this forum are no where to be seen. Making believe she doesn't exist won't erase the embarrassment.

Gov. Strickland: If possible, he was worse than Tim Pawlenty in Tampa. Does this guy suffer from St Vitus Dance or did he really have to pee?

Ron Emmanuel: A terrible speech. Why did I think he would make a good one? Actually, it might have been the proverbial home run if they let him be himself and use fu*k every third word. For someone who is supposed to be such a political badass, he certainly came across as a voice cracking pissant.

Kathleen Sebelius: The human corn stalk can actually smile! Was she there to praise Caesar or her father? Double down on ObamaCare, because only 60% of Americans thing it needs to be repealed.

Mayor Castro: Not bad but he suffered from elevated expectations. Sounded to me like he stole 75% of Marco Rubio's speech.

Michelle Obama: A well delivered speech which was stupendously delivered to her audience. She didn't persuade any Republican to vote for her husband and I doubt she persuaded any on-the-fence Dem to either. That wasn't her mission though. Her job was to try and resurrect "Hope and Change," and to reconnect to a base Obama had in 2008, but can't possibly reproduce in 2012. To this extent she did as good a job as possible, and may end up as having given the best speech of the convention. She laid it on a little thick, but her audience likes a ton of jelly with their peanut butter.

General: Dems reliably criticize the GOP convention of having nothing but white delegates...even when it's not the truth, but where were the white delegates at the Dem convention? Unless you believe white Americans are blue eyed devils who should have no part in our nation's governance, why would you want to depict an audience devoid of the majority "race" in this country?

Obviously there are plenty of white Democrats, and the Dems are not anti-white, but conventions are largely about imagery. Why does the DNC think that images wherein whites can be considered the minority are favorable? Probably has something to do with white liberals feeling good about seeing less of them and more of "of color."

For some reason a perceived shortage of brown faces at one convention spells racism, but a perceived shortage of white faces at the other spells...well, racism, but not on the part of the organizers, just the perceiver. The foes of racism can't lose!

White Guilt, the engine of the modern Democrat Party.

Obviously, by any discussion of race I am opening myself to the tired allegations of racism I can reliably expect from snood & Co, but if anyone thinks the Dems leaders have not been thinking about how race can benefit their cause, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

I'm surprised to see you indulging in such racist and derogatory stereotyping. I had thought that was considered bad behavior among you folks. I certainly consider it to be bad and offensive behavior.