**Warning** More Republican bashing here

[klunderbunker]

He did from what I hear. There was bad weather forecasted.

 

[gd]

According to Fox it was because of the tens of thousands of empty seats there was going to be and it was just another failed promise.

 

[klunderbunker]

According to Fox it was because of the tens of thousands of empty seats there was going to be and it was just another failed promise.

Well that's because FOX is rather stupid.

 

[JGlass]

We have had leadership for the last 4 years?


Lulz.

I really can't stand when people pretend like Obama hasn't done anything. He's made more visible change in his 4 years of Presidency than many presidents have in 8. He has approached James Polk levels of "taking care of business." He reformed healthcare, repealed DADT, put the first openly gay justice on the Supreme Court, withdrew troops from Iraq, killed Osama Bin Laden, and created millions of jobs. And that's just the headline worthy stuff.

 

[klunderbunker]

I really can't stand when people pretend like Obama hasn't done anything. He's made more visible change in his 4 years of Presidency than many presidents have in 8. He has approached James Polk levels of "taking care of business." He reformed healthcare, repealed DADT, put the first openly gay justice on the Supreme Court, withdrew troops from Iraq, killed Osama Bin Laden, and created millions of jobs. And that's just the headline worthy stuff.

All while having I believe the least active Congress since records of that has been kept.

Also was it ever confirmed that either Sotomayor or Kagan were gay? I don't remember hearing that ever being official.

 

[Slyfox696]

According to Fox it was because of the tens of thousands of empty seats there was going to be and it was just another failed promise.

Just remember:

We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers

The last thing Republicans want you to do is expect the truth from them.

I really can't stand when people pretend like Obama hasn't done anything. He's made more visible change in his 4 years of Presidency than many presidents have in 8. He has approached James Polk levels of "taking care of business." He reformed healthcare, repealed DADT, put the first openly gay justice on the Supreme Court, withdrew troops from Iraq, killed Osama Bin Laden, and created millions of jobs. And that's just the headline worthy stuff.

Republicans aren't interested in truths, they're interested in rhetoric. And I refer more to the Republican voters. They are far more concerned about the letter that comes after a politician's name, than what the politician actually did.

In fairness, there are plenty of Democrats who do the same thing, but Obama is the incumbent, not a Republican.

 

[Slyfox696]

And I just want to say the blatant ignorance of Republican voters truly saddens me. There are many Republicans who simply disagree on how government should be run, but they at least aren't blithering idiots. When I discuss politics with Davi, he's seems fairly reasonable and knowledgeable.

But there are so many morons who REFUSE to accept anything good about Obama, and it saddens me their vote counts as much as mine.

 

[klunderbunker]

And I just want to say the blatant ignorance of Republican voters truly saddens me. There are many Republicans who simply disagree on how government should be run, but they at least aren't blithering idiots. When I discuss politics with Davi, he's seems fairly reasonable and knowledgeable.

But there are so many morons who REFUSE to accept anything good about Obama, and it saddens me their vote counts as much as mine.

This pretty much sums up my issues with them too. There are a lot of very well read and intelligent GOP lawmakers. John McCain is one of them. There was a town hall he did in the last election where a woman said Obama wasn't trustworthy because he's an Arab or something like that. McCain said something to the effect of that's not true and Obama is a hardworking good man who I just happen to have philosophical differences with.

Any politician that says something like that is someone I'll at least give the time of day to. Someone who talks about Obama leading us into 1000 years of darkness is more joke material for me and nothing more.

 

[Gelgarin]

Actually I think the quote was "He's not an Arab; he's a good American." which I found pretty suspect in its own right, but I agree with your point in principle.

 

[Milkyway!]

Oh hey, what are your thoughts on Teacher Unions, and unions in general Sly?

 

[Slyfox696]

Oh hey, what are your thoughts on Teacher Unions, and unions in general Sly?

Missouri doesn't really have teacher unions, so I can't really comment intelligently on that. What I can say is the idea that teacher unions are the cause of the supposedly low levels of education in this country is absurd.

 

[ServantofTwilight]

The past week or so I have enjoyed reading the posts here on both conventions. Being niether a Republican or Demacrat I can read all the posts with a level of non-chalant that some other posters cannot. I have found the post vary from entertaining to informative to down right silly. Obviously most of the posters who post in these threads are left leaning so the threads tend to pound the right, which i don't mind, although to be totally honest I tend to be more conservative in my general beliefs then liberal. And while I will be the first to admit I am nowhere near as knowledgable as some here there is one thing I wanted to comment on.

Earlier in this thread it was brought up that the Demacrats had removed language dealing with God and Isreal from there platform. Davi323 mentioned that after Paul Ryan commented on this omission the Dems scrambled to get the language back in. Slyfox696 argued with him, basically saying it was a non-issue. Here I disagree.

First, if it was not an issue then the omissions never would have occured in the first place. They were in place 4 years ago so someone had to activly remove them. There must have been a reason. I highly doubt they were left out just because they felt like it. I doubt someone said ' Hey, for shits and giggles lets leave God and Isreal out of our platform'. So to just dismiss it as nothing seems weak.

Second, if it was nothing the Dems would not have rushed to get it back in one day later. If they felt strongly enough to leave them out they sure backtracked in a hurry. To put them back in takes motions and a vote so again, it is kind of a big deal. This is a quote from an LATimes article...

"Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the changes to the platform were made Wednesday “to maintain consistency with the personal views expressed by the President and in the Democratic Party platform in 2008.”

If that is the why were they changed?



And third this...

[YOUTUBE]EipTvSN1hec[/YOUTUBE]

As you can see, from a CNN video and not FoxNews, the vote was not simple, having to be done three times. The vote was not clear as it seems there are just as many who vote no as yes. The gentlman hold the vote seems lost and confused, and I have my doubts as to whether or not they even got three thirds in the affirmative. And judging from the boos it was not a totally popular decision.

So, did this hurt the Dems and Obama? Doubtful. Does it strengthen the Republicans? Doubtful. However it did cause a small rift in the party which might have to be healed, and if the election is a close as some are saying it will be...who knows. However to dismiss it as nothing is silly. It was something.

 

[klunderbunker]

I think the whole Jerusalem thing is one of those stories that has a shelf life of about a day and a half and then six months go by and people say "do you remember that Jerusalem deal at the convention?" "Yeah I remember that. It happened all right." And that's the extent of the conversation about it after this week.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Clearly a politician from Florida with the name Deborah Wasserman Schultz hates Israel and God.

Oy vey!

 

[Slyfox696]

The past week or so I have enjoyed reading the posts here on both conventions. Being niether a Republican or Demacrat I can read all the posts with a level of non-chalant that some other posters cannot. I have found the post vary from entertaining to informative to down right silly. Obviously most of the posters who post in these threads are left leaning so the threads tend to pound the right, which i don't mind, although to be totally honest I tend to be more conservative in my general beliefs then liberal. And while I will be the first to admit I am nowhere near as knowledgable as some here there is one thing I wanted to comment on.

Earlier in this thread it was brought up that the Demacrats had removed language dealing with God and Isreal from there platform. Davi323 mentioned that after Paul Ryan commented on this omission the Dems scrambled to get the language back in. Slyfox696 argued with him, basically saying it was a non-issue. Here I disagree.

First, if it was not an issue then the omissions never would have occured in the first place. They were in place 4 years ago so someone had to activly remove them. There must have been a reason. I highly doubt they were left out just because they felt like it. I doubt someone said ' Hey, for shits and giggles lets leave God and Isreal out of our platform'. So to just dismiss it as nothing seems weak.

Second, if it was nothing the Dems would not have rushed to get it back in one day later. If they felt strongly enough to leave them out they sure backtracked in a hurry. To put them back in takes motions and a vote so again, it is kind of a big deal. This is a quote from an LATimes article...

"Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the changes to the platform were made Wednesday “to maintain consistency with the personal views expressed by the President and in the Democratic Party platform in 2008.”

If that is the why were they changed?



And third this...

[YOUTUBE]EipTvSN1hec[/YOUTUBE]

As you can see, from a CNN video and not FoxNews, the vote was not simple, having to be done three times. The vote was not clear as it seems there are just as many who vote no as yes. The gentlman hold the vote seems lost and confused, and I have my doubts as to whether or not they even got three thirds in the affirmative. And judging from the boos it was not a totally popular decision.

So, did this hurt the Dems and Obama? Doubtful. Does it strengthen the Republicans? Doubtful. However it did cause a small rift in the party which might have to be healed, and if the election is a close as some are saying it will be...who knows. However to dismiss it as nothing is silly. It was something.

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant, as I believe Davi did initially.

When it comes to the economy, does the omission of God and Israel matter? When it comes to energy, does the omission of God and Israel matter? When it comes to the national debt or deficit, does the omission of God and Israel matter? When it comes to matters of improving education, does the omission of God and Israel matter? When discussing the political threat from China, does the omission of God and Israel matter? When discussing nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, does the omission of God and Israel matter? When bringing troops home from Afghanistan, does the omission of God and Israel matter? When working to help prevent a European economic breakdown, does the omission of God and Israel matter?

For just about every important matter facing this country, the omission of God and Israel doesn't matter. The fact is, God and Israel is as important as saying "God Bless America" at the end of a speech. It's just something that's expected, but it carries no real relevance.

That's what I mean. Your question is, if it doesn't matter, why bother changing it? To not lose votes, what else? But just because they are adding in a few meaningless clauses to get votes come November, that doesn't mean this is an important issue.

Does that make better sense?

 

[Davi323]

When discussing nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, does the omission of God and Israel matter?

Umm, really? Yes. I would argue that it matters very much. As our only true ally in the middle east, Israel's protection is of the utmost priority. If Iran develops nuclear capability, the odds are that it will be the Israelis who will feel the pressure, knowing that Ahmadenijad's threats to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth now have the ability to actually be carried out. If Iran is going to be stopped from developing those nuclear weapons, the odds are it will be the Israelis who strike to destroy such capability. Israel needs US support, and the US needs Israel to stand firm in the middle east. They need to know that we stand behind them.

So, what does taking a firm position in regards to Jerusalem make? It shows Israel that the United States stands behind them, rather than trying to diplomatically appease all sides. Like it or not, when it comes to America's interests in the middle east, Israel is the only country we can even halfway trust. Firmly siding with them that Jerusalem should be the capital instead of Tel Aviv would show them that we have their back, and more importantly, lets the rest of the middle east know that we have Israel's back. Obama doesn't exactly have the greatest record as far as Israel is concerned, he has not been it's biggest ally. The US's deteriorating relationship with Israel over the past 3-1/2 years is a legitimate election issue, especially among those Israel supporting Jews in America who may not be so quick to re-elect Obama, despite being consistent Democratic voters in the past. It's not green lighting any Israeli air strike on Iran that they want, but it is a gesture of friendship, from a country that has not been the best at maintaining that friendship recently.

On a side note, the greatest thing about this year's DNC? You have spent the last year challenging Voter ID laws on the claim that voter fraud simply doesn't happen, and yet, it just happened on the floor of your own convention, for all the world to see! Way to go guys!

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant, as I believe Davi did initially.

When it comes to the economy, does the omission of God and Israel matter? When it comes to energy, does the omission of God and Israel matter? When it comes to the national debt or deficit, does the omission of God and Israel matter? When it comes to matters of improving education, does the omission of God and Israel matter? When discussing the political threat from China, does the omission of God and Israel matter? When discussing nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran, does the omission of God and Israel matter? When bringing troops home from Afghanistan, does the omission of God and Israel matter? When working to help prevent a European economic breakdown, does the omission of God and Israel matter?

For just about every important matter facing this country, the omission of God and Israel doesn't matter. The fact is, God and Israel is as important as saying "God Bless America" at the end of a speech. It's just something that's expected, but it carries no real relevance.

That's what I mean. Your question is, if it doesn't matter, why bother changing it? To not lose votes, what else? But just because they are adding in a few meaningless clauses to get votes come November, that doesn't mean this is an important issue.

Does that make better sense?

"So what does Romney's tax returns have to do with any of these things that you mention are so important?" is the question I wouild ask if I were a conservative.

Seriously, I am on team Obama but while all of your points are reasonable and rational they lead to so many other problems for the Democrats. By continuing this issue this way and trying to win the argument, it is keeping the topic at the forefront. This issue is going to remind independent voters that there is a radical left element with power in the party, it is going to make Jewish seniors in Florida think that Obama hates Israel and it is going to rile up religious folk and give them more fuel.

The proper tact is to ask a question back to the accuser and let them talk themself in to a hole. Ask them why they think it was taken out and let them sound like an idiot.

Or be a condescending ass like me and mention Deborah Wasserman Schultz.

 

[Барбоса]

It takes a declaration of supporting Jerusalem as the capital of Israel to let the rest of the Middle East know that the US has Israel's back?

No, it is only idiot, reactionary American voters who need this kind of tokenism.

And "trying to diplomatically appease all sides" is a bad thing? It most certainly is not. Unilateral, uncritical support for Israel, no matter what it does, is a sure-fire way to make sure that the US is continued to be viewed by the "devil" in the Middle East.

But then again we are talking about the internal perceptions of the US public during election time, which rarely reflect what is going on in the wider world.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Umm, really? Yes. I would argue that it matters very much. As our only true ally in the middle east, Israel's protection is of the utmost priority. If Iran develops nuclear capability, the odds are that it will be the Israelis who will feel the pressure, knowing that Ahmadenijad's threats to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth now have the ability to actually be carried out. If Iran is going to be stopped from developing those nuclear weapons, the odds are it will be the Israelis who strike to destroy such capability. Israel needs US support, and the US needs Israel to stand firm in the middle east. They need to know that we stand behind them.

So, what does taking a firm position in regards to Jerusalem make? It shows Israel that the United States stands behind them, rather than trying to diplomatically appease all sides. Like it or not, when it comes to America's interests in the middle east, Israel is the only country we can even halfway trust. Firmly siding with them that Jerusalem should be the capital instead of Tel Aviv would show them that we have their back, and more importantly, lets the rest of the middle east know that we have Israel's back. Obama doesn't exactly have the greatest record as far as Israel is concerned, he has not been it's biggest ally. The US's deteriorating relationship with Israel over the past 3-1/2 years is a legitimate election issue, especially among those Israel supporting Jews in America who may not be so quick to re-elect Obama, despite being consistent Democratic voters in the past. It's not green lighting any Israeli air strike on Iran that they want, but it is a gesture of friendship, from a country that has not been the best at maintaining that friendship recently.

1. It is pretty clear to everyone but Sean Hannity that the US supports Israel.

2. You make it sound like the US should have unconditional love for Israel.

3. If conservatives are so concerned with the US's relationship with Israel, why do they keep trying to sabotage it with this rhetoric?

On a side note, the greatest thing about this year's DNC? You have spent the last year challenging Voter ID laws on the claim that voter fraud simply doesn't happen, and yet, it just happened on the floor of your own convention, for all the world to see! Way to go guys!

I finally got to see that and it was pretty embarassing. Talk about something that needs to be swept under the rug. It is nothing compared to making laws that have no basis and are clearly meant to suppress the old, poor and minorities from exercising a very important right but it is still really embarassing.

 

[Slyfox696]

Umm, really? Yes. I would argue that it matters very much. As our only true ally in the middle east, Israel's protection is of the utmost priority. If Iran develops nuclear capability, the odds are that it will be the Israelis who will feel the pressure, knowing that Ahmadenijad's threats to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth now have the ability to actually be carried out. If Iran is going to be stopped from developing those nuclear weapons, the odds are it will be the Israelis who strike to destroy such capability. Israel needs US support, and the US needs Israel to stand firm in the middle east. They need to know that we stand behind them.

So, what does taking a firm position in regards to Jerusalem make? It shows Israel that the United States stands behind them, rather than trying to diplomatically appease all sides. Like it or not, when it comes to America's interests in the middle east, Israel is the only country we can even halfway trust. Firmly siding with them that Jerusalem should be the capital instead of Tel Aviv would show them that we have their back, and more importantly, lets the rest of the middle east know that we have Israel's back. Obama doesn't exactly have the greatest record as far as Israel is concerned, he has not been it's biggest ally. The US's deteriorating relationship with Israel over the past 3-1/2 years is a legitimate election issue, especially among those Israel supporting Jews in America who may not be so quick to re-elect Obama, despite being consistent Democratic voters in the past. It's not green lighting any Israeli air strike on Iran that they want, but it is a gesture of friendship, from a country that has not been the best at maintaining that friendship recently.

So let me see if I have this right. You're saying that Israel is an issue, because you want it to be an issue.

You didn't mention ONE reason to support Israel. Even if I provide reasons like US presence in the Middle East (which you alluded to, but I'm not sure if you meant) or because they have a type of democracy, is that really that important to our country? Are you telling me we can't monitor or invade Iran without Israel? Of course we can.

It's not a big deal. At all.

On a side note, the greatest thing about this year's DNC? You have spent the last year challenging Voter ID laws on the claim that voter fraud simply doesn't happen, and yet, it just happened on the floor of your own convention, for all the world to see! Way to go guys!

Ignoring for a moment the difference in a Constitutionally protected right to vote, and the way a private club chooses to adopt policies, the voice vote was silly. After not being able to make a decision after two different votes, they should have had the sense to do something different. That was just ridiculous on their part, especially for something so inconsequential.

"So what does Romney's tax returns have to do with any of these things that you mention are so important?" is the question I wouild ask if I were a conservative.

And I would say that Romney is asking us to trust him with our economy, and he's showing nothing to allow us to trust him. Furthermore, one of the main issues in this election is the difference between the wealthy and the middle class, and the tax cuts Romney wants to give the wealthy. If we can see in his old tax returns that Romney paid very little in taxes, while he was making millions of dollars a year, then it's going to be a tough pill to swallow as a teacher, to know that he wants my taxes to go up, and his already low taxes to go down even more. Finally, his taxes would show whether or not he was part of Bain capital after 1999, and if he was still making money off companies that were outsourcing jobs to other countries.

That's why the tax returns are important. And honestly, while I'm not a fan of the "guilty until proven innocent" concept, given the fact the tax returns are such a big deal, I honestly don't understand why he WOULDN'T release them, unless there are things in there which would be very detrimental to his campaign.

Seriously, I am on team Obama but while all of your points are reasonable and rational they lead to so many other problems for the Democrats. By continuing this issue this way and trying to win the argument, it is keeping the topic at the forefront. This issue is going to remind independent voters that there is a radical left element with power in the party, it is going to make Jewish seniors in Florida think that Obama hates Israel and it is going to rile up religious folk and give them more fuel.

I've already said they put those statements back in to draw votes. I know exactly why they were put in. But if no one had noticed they were taken out, then no one would have ever noticed from the policies being implemented. It's not going to change policy, it won't change the direction of our country...it's not going to make one bit of difference in how the country is run. The only thing it will do is help garner votes.

As a matter of policy, it is completely unimportant.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

And "trying to diplomatically appease all sides" is a bad thing? It most certainly is not.

I would argue that it is a bad thing because if you look back to the 30's, this was the mistake France and Great Britain made and it led to WW2. I'm not saying that appeasing all sides is going to lead to a WW3 but you never know with the Middle East.

 

[Барбоса]

I would argue that it is a bad thing because if you look back to the 30's, this was the mistake France and Great Britain made and it led to WW2. I'm not saying that appeasing all sides is going to lead to a WW3 but you never know with the Middle East.

Dangerously close to Godwin here.

Britain and France did not try to appease both sides; they partook in unilateral appeasement of Hitler. They stood idly by as Austria was manipulated and bullied into asking for German military intervention and then Anschluss and the Czechs were not even invited to the conference that led to the giving of the Sudetenland to Hitler and his eventual taking of all of what is know the Czech Republic.

If anything, the US has been guilty of such one-sided appeasement/backing of Israel in the the past.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

Dangerously close to Godwin here.

Britain and France did not try to appease both sides; they partook in unilateral appeasement of Hitler. They stood idly by as Austria was manipulated and bullied into asking for German military intervention and then Anschluss and the Czechs were not even invited to the conference that led to the giving of the Sudetenland to Hitler and his eventual taking of all of what is know the Czech Republic.

If anything, the US has been guilty of such one-sided appeasement/backing of Israel in the the past.

Very true. But how about the fact that we've supported Israel since its formation as a country? Hell, Iran hates our guts anyway so why should we try to appease them? We should stick with our ally and screw Iran. If they don't like that we support Israel then middle finger to them.

 

[Slyfox696]

Very true. But how about the fact that we've supported Israel since its formation as a country? Hell, Iran hates our guts anyway so why should we try to appease them? We should stick with our ally and screw Iran. If they don't like that we support Israel then middle finger to them.

Thanks Mitt Bush. Nothing says good politics better than inflammatory comments.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yeah how dare us try to show Iran that we're not completely against them so that they might want to actually talk to us. Instead, let's go with the old GOP idea: we have more guns so we win and screw anything other than force to get our way.