klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
I'll give Bush this: his speech on the night of 9/11 was one of the best I've ever heard.
**Warning** More Republican bashing here
- Thread starter Slyfox696
- Start date
I'll give Bush this: his speech on the night of 9/11 was one of the best I've ever heard.
I can understand the impatience. What I can't understand is the lack of perspective and the uncaring, unfeeling attitude of those who regularly spend $200 on a dinner towards those who are hoping their boxes of ramen noodles and macaroni and cheese will last through the week.
Was that when he said, "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists". That was a pretty big blunder.
Switzerland agrees.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
I think that was a different one.
George Steele's Barber
Advertise Here $9.95/month
I can barely please my 5' 1", 105 lb. wife, there is no way I could please a woman like Michelle Obama.
Obama 2012!
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
What really blows my mind is that it seems like the vast majority of the population is entirely ignorant of the fact that economies are cyclical. It is even more frustrating because the ******ed mindset that endless consistent growth is possible was such a large part of creating the mess in the first place.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Ech, Louisville is 27th, right behind Nashville.
The 1-2-3 Killam
Mid-Card Championship Winner
1) No way in hell is Romney the lesser of two evils.
2) That excuse is bullshit. "I don't like either guy, so I'm just gonna vote for who will do the least damage". We have more than two parties; no matter how much the media paints this picture of a 2-party system the choices are there for people who want an alternative.
I'm not telling you that Gary Johnson is a better choice, I'm just saying there are alternatives.
In other news...I feel like our system of checks and balances is just fucked. I can't imagine there's a simple way to keep a balance of power between Congress and the White House, and accountability is definitely necessary, but when nothing happens and nothing can get passed the government just keeps spinning its wheels.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
So what problem does Paul Ryan have with the platform changes of the Democratic party?
Paul Ryan is incensed the Democrats aren't talking about the foreign country which has garned the US so much hate in the Middle East, and is incensed the Democrats removed God from their platform. I find it amusing he speaks of the "founding documents, founding vision", when if he would have ever bothered reading the Constitution, he'd know God is not mentioned one time. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once said, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law. "
Imagine that...Paul Ryan having trouble with the truth. That's okay, at least Ryan can run a sub 3 hour marathon, like Lance Armstrong. Or not...
Ryan said:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ragic-democratic-platform-changes/?hpt=hp_bn3
Paul Ryan is incensed the Democrats aren't talking about the foreign country which has garned the US so much hate in the Middle East, and is incensed the Democrats removed God from their platform. I find it amusing he speaks of the "founding documents, founding vision", when if he would have ever bothered reading the Constitution, he'd know God is not mentioned one time. In fact, Thomas Jefferson once said, "Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law. "
Imagine that...Paul Ryan having trouble with the truth. That's okay, at least Ryan can run a sub 3 hour marathon, like Lance Armstrong. Or not...
If Ryan's objections were so ridiculous, why did the Democrats scramble today to address both complaints by putting them back in their platform?
Ryan 1, Democrats 0.
Because the country is composed of morons who'll believe anything that comes from a suit. All that matters is you look better saying it than the other guy.
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
Because Democrats, by nature, are *****es.
Just like Republicans, by nature, are greedy, selfish, racist lunatics
Because his objections are completely irrelevant to the well-being of the country, not to mention his specific objections are, like so much of what Ryan has said since being made VP candidate, completely false. That's what is ridiculous about it.
Slyfox 1, Davi 0.
And yet, rather than acknowledge the falsehood of Ryan's objections, the DNC caved in to those objections and addressed them. Seems odd to me, that if Ryan was just talking nonsense, that they would have bothered. Especially since it has been the policy of this Administration to refuse to name Jerusalem the capitol of Israel, instead claiming that it was a matter between the Israelis and Palestinians to decide.
It is also curious, considering both of the Ryan objections dealt with language that was included in the 2008 platform, meaning that they had been deliberately removed for 2012. It wasn't just a simple omission, both the God and Israel language was specifically taken out of it. Ryan complains, the Democrats realize people were paying attention, and desperately scramble to put the language back in. The timing is decidedly convenient.
Now, I am positive that you will try to claim that it was at Obama's behest that the language was put back in, and not because of the potential political trouble that continuing to leave it out would have caused. Okay, fine. If that is the case, explain why would they strip it in the first place, if Obama, the President of the United States, and the defacto head of the Democratic party, was in favor of keeping both in? Why would they go against his personal wishes in the first place? He is the one running to be reelected, the language was in there when he got elected the first time, so why the change? Why strip the language now, against the President's wishes, and then scramble to put it back in after the VP nominee of the other party points it out? It makes the Democrats not only look poorly organized, makes the platform look like it wasn't thought out properly, but also points to a large disconnect between them and the President. The current President of the United States should not have to keep correcting the leadership of his own party, should he? Shouldn't there be strong communication between them, so that the party acts in the best interest of their candidate's policy?
Or, would you suggest that the language was removed, against Obama's wishes, because the DNC feels that they know better how to get Obama reelected than he does? That they are smarter than the President, and need to exert their own will, to drive the election according to their theories, and not those of their candidate?
No, none of this is reality. What really happened is that they fucked up big time. The fact that removing the language regarding Jerusalem being Israel's capitol would piss off a large Jewish voting block, who have traditionally supported the Democratic party never occurred to them, or if it did, they didn't treat the possibility seriously enough. They forgot that most Americans believe in God, and that stripping God from their platform, despite it being there 4 years ago, might anger some of those people who see the current Administration as waging a war against religion by refusing to allow waivers for religious institutions from having to cover birth control against their faith, while companies that donated heavily to Obama's election campaign got as many waivers as they wanted. They simply misremembered the anger caused by the President's overtly hostile tone when he said that people were clinging to their religion and guns.
No, what really happened is that the far left progressives in the party wrote the platform in their own image, got called out on it, and had to "fix" it to make the Democrats appear more moderate.
It wasn't a "falsehood". Omission is not falsehood. Quite frankly, they both are rather unimportant concepts, which is what I was talking about in the first place.
You're not making a point at all, other than to suggest Paul Ryan is influencing the Democratic platform. That may be true, but that is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that those two points are completely irrelevant.
Of course it's convenient, it's election time, and it's going to be a close race. I don't know why they took it out, but they don't want to offend voters, and there are millions of Democrats who believe very strongly in God, which is why it was brought up and put to a vote.
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here.
My guess is that they were taken out because they are irrelevant to the nation's well-being. They were put back in because it would be cannon fodder for Republicans to use.
To put it with an example you'll probably understand better, it's like how Republicans feel about Romney's tax returns. Republicans feel it's an insignificant part of this election, so why are Democrats bothering with it? The omission of God and Israel is truly insignificant, but instead of just refusing to deal with it like Romney has, the Democrats just made a change to make it a non-issue.
I think you are GROSSLY overestimating the importance of these two factors. I agree it matters to some voters, but it was omitted originally because it is fairly insignificant in actuality. I mean, the platform of both parties for 20 years has basically been the same on Israel and moving the capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and yet no President has ever bothered.
The fact of the matter is that the Democrats removed it because neither one was relevant to a strong political platform, and they put it back to avoid having to defend the platform like Romney has to defend his tax returns. The Democrats simply made it a non-issue. And what's Paul Ryan going to say about it now? That the Democrats were willing to listen to his idea and adjust policy because of it? That kind of goes against that whole "Obama is divisive" rhetoric they've been pushing.
Again, I think you're making this out to be a far bigger issue than it really is.
Mighty NorCal
SHALL WE BEGIN?
I also was caught by surprise.
The clint eastwood thing was epic. What a fucking train wreck.
and Republicans expect people to take them even remotely seriously.
Mighty NorCal
SHALL WE BEGIN?
We all know the key to gaining stability is massive overhaul of leadership and directives.
lulz.
lulz.
Mighty NorCal
SHALL WE BEGIN?
I dunno, ill go ask some gay kids in my unit what they think....
Wow...Davi, I enjoy chatting with you and all, but I think NorCal pretty much stopped your attack cold.
Similar threads
