The Democratic Convention

That was when there still were real Republicans.

Oh, the removal of a confirmation that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel from the Democrat platform has caused such a big stink that the Dems voted to put it back in along with a reference to "God."

I've listened to the tapes of the vote and only someone who wants to believe that which is unbelieveable would argue that the AYEs had it. The Chair (LA Bozo) asked for three voice votes hoping one would move the way already ordained by the Party Bosses.

The majority of the delegates didn't want changes to the platform.

How utterly pathetic a spectacle and most of you will insist the Dems were forthright in this matter.

Sleep well tonight.

As if you have even the slightest idea of what a "real" Republican might be.

You've made it clear to all in this forum that you disdain, if not dispise, anyone, now and in the past, who have called themselves Republican.

(With the obvious exception of Lincoln who only got to weigh in on one issue)

That's not true. I respect Lincoln quite a bit, and up through Eisenhower the Republicans were pretty decent.

It was Nixon with his Southern Strategy that really began the ideas at the core of the Republican party now-- that improving the lot of racial minorities amounts to stealing from wealthy white people. The idea that whites deserve their privilege because black and hispanic Americans are lazy and entitled is the part of the Republican party that I have the most disdain for.

Without question the Southern Strategy is still a big part of this years Republican rhetoric.

With the advent of the Tea Party the Republicans now are driven by a level of craziness that is unprecedented in any major party since the Know-Nothings.

So you are wrong. There are many past Republicans that I have respect for. Factually, I think George H. W. Bush (i.e. papa Bush) was a decent man and a pretty good president in spite of the fact I disagreed with him quite a bit. And while I don't idolize Reagan, he was quite sane compared to the Republicans of the past 5 years.

I am curious Finn. Do you think Reagan was a real Republican?

Bill Clinton spoke for nearly 3/4 of an hour, but it went by really fast for me. Man, ole slick can still knock it out of the park when he has to.

Good show!!

Clinton's speach was exactly the tonic needed to follow up Michelle and set the stage for Barak. Great going, so far.

Any of you guys actually watching that left-wing freak bullshit while there was a really first-rate football game on??

I mean, aside from everything else, Demarco Murray seems to have added the extra ten pounds he needed for the NFL and is startling to look like nearly as much of a factor in the Dallas offense as he was at Oklahoma.

Split-screen, Gunga. Upgrade to a real TV.

Clinton was masterful, absolutely demolished Romney's position on a wide variety of issues. Specifically called them out on a variety of lies and misrepresentations. It's a preview of what Obama is going to do to Romney in the debates, and it's going to be devastating.

Cycloptichorn

I wouldn't normally be this confident about the projected outcome of one of these debates. But I am pretty confident that Obama is going to come off a lot better than Romney. Obama is wa-ay better on his feet than they give him credit for, and I think that the more facts get uncovered and the more truth is told, it will just strengthen Obama and diminish Romney.

But the various fact checker organizations, including CNN, have already shown some of the lies and "misspeaks" by the dens.

I know you by your posts, george.

I think you should describe what you think my world is for the group.

it might tell us a lot more about you...

(if I'm mostly white, and you are lily white, how can that be a racist remark?)

Clinton was wonderful! He could not have done a better job. It was a perfect rebuttal to the Republicans.

I think the Democrats are hitting all the necessary bases and sounding all the right notes at this convention.

All anybody has to do to tell who's lying in this picture is look at the numbers:

1. Unemployment: 8.3 percent
2. Gasoline: $3.80 a gallon
3. The national debt: $16 trillion

Obunga can run, but he can't hide.

http://able2know.org/topic/197294-1#post-5098282

Sorry Mysteryman, while the Republicans won't be "swayed by fact-checkers", the Democrats are mostly being careful that what they say is factual.

Of course, if your team is performing worse than the other team, you can always blame the referees.

Were some of those an entire speech by the VP nominee?

He doesn't need to hide. There is a segment of the independent voter group who believe that the numbers you post are the intentional and deliberate effort of the Republican House. They will, in all likelihood, vote for Obama and other Democrats in November. The Republican party has an image problem that it can't escape - they HATE the President and have done everything they can, including allowing the economy to remain suppressed and our credit ratings to be downgraded, in order to see him defeated. I'm an equal opportunity political party hater, but the Rs get the bulk of my animosity and plan to vote accordingly. I doubt I'm unique.

What always wonders me is that the US-conservatives (and only they) make the US-president responsible for gas/oil prices.
Most (if not all) others think that oil is a global market in which America is a big consumer ... and driving up prices because they consume about 20 percent of the world’s oil ....

[Btw: in February 2001, just after Bush took office, the average price of regular gasoline was $1.45 a gallon. By June 2008, that price had risen to $4.05.]