God and Jerusalem
The question I have is this--was the controversy being generated about those two words not being in their platform worth the solution to the issue they provided?
--There is a pretty large contingent of delegates who don't support the words being in the platform
--They seemed to be responding more to the criticism by the other side than to any real change in policy
Though I personally believe in God and think it should be part of the platform and I also belief that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of Israel, that is not the discussion here--this is more of a question of the issue presented (those words not being in the platform) and the solution (did it make it better or worse)...
Quote: DJTeddyBearNot a follower of politics, um, what words are you talking about?
The two in the title of the thread...also aded to first sentetnce...
I will say again what their problem is about. The GOP is an establishment party, based on a few core values, mostly all related to each other. The Democrat Party is a collection of groups who do not like some part of what the GOP stands for or/and have some narrow special interest. But the Democrats have the problems that first, all of their interests do not add up to enough to win while the GOP can (barely) squeak a victory out with little "independent" vote. Second, the various parts of the Democrat Party not only are not complementary, but are against each other's interest. Unions want Keystone XL, envrios hate it. Pro-abortion and envrionmentalism do nothing to complement each other. And plenty of blue-collar people believe in guns and like to hunt.
A signifigant part of the Democrat base is openly hostile to religion of any kind. Another part is hostile to any religion except Islam (though they are not Muslims themselves.) They got these planks put in the platform. It does nothing but represent their views. When the lamestream media was forced to pick up the story, elements in the party realized that most of America saw who they are, so they pulled a rapid change.
Quote: s2dbakerI'm still laughing about Clint Eastwood's empty chair. What was this thread about exactly?
So are a lot of people, it showed Obama to be the empty suit he is.
Quote: AZDuffmanObama cannot fil Bank of America Stadium so they move indoors.
When's the last time you were in Charlotte? My husband was there on Tuesday and his flight was delayed two hours because of the storms. He texted me a picture of Air Force One out on the tarmac.
Obama had an outdoor rally in Norfolk that day and at least four people fainted from the heat.
You can spin the reason for the move all you want, but I live down here. It's hot, rainy, and the mosquitoes are eating me alive when I bring my daughter to the bus stop. Moving indoors was a smart decision.
Quote: FarFromVegasWhen's the last time you were in Charlotte? My husband was there on Tuesday and his flight was delayed two hours because of the storms. He texted me a picture of Air Force One out on the tarmac.
Obama had an outdoor rally in Norfolk that day and at least four people fainted from the heat.
You can spin the reason for the move all you want, but I live down here. It's hot, rainy, and the mosquitoes are eating me alive when I bring my daughter to the bus stop. Moving indoors was a smart decision.
If this was all the case they would never have booked the outdoor site in the first place. Anyone can see what happened. Obama wanted a huge, screaming crowd to make him look larger than life. When it became obvious that crowd would not appear, the event was downsized.
Quote: AZDuffmanIf this was all the case they would never have booked the outdoor site in the first place. Anyone can see what happened. Obama wanted a huge, screaming crowd to make him look larger than life. When it became obvious that crowd would not appear, the event was downsized.
So they cancelled the first night of the RNC because of lack of interest.
If I say it enough, people will believe me!
Quote: FarFromVegasSo they cancelled the first night of the RNC because of lack of interest.
If I say it enough, people will believe me!
No, they canceled it beause of a verifiable hurricane warning. The weather forecast for tomorrow shows a near zero chance of rain. No hurricanes in site.
Though there was a 98% chance Obama could not fill the place.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe weather forecast for tomorrow shows a near zero chance of rain.
The forecast for today is 80%. Obama takes the stage tonight, not tomorrow.
The storms should start in about an hour.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, they canceled it beause of a verifiable hurricane warning. The weather forecast for tomorrow shows a near zero chance of rain. No hurricanes in site.
Though there was a 98% chance Obama could not fill the place.
I'm pretty sure even the Democratic National Committee said there was never a chance of a "full house"; I think they had hoped for something like 80%.
As for why they moved it, I believe the excuse, for two reasons - first, this isn't the first time something like this has happened (this year's National Memorial Day Concert in DC had to end halfway through the show when they had to evacuate the area because of the possibility of thunderstorms), and even if there was something like a 1% chance, the last thing the Democrats needed was somebody to even get injured because of a lightning strike, giving the Republicans something to put into their campaign commercials ("Obama says he's all about saving lives - but what about those who died just so he could have more people listen to his speech?"); second, it seems to me that it's far too easy for the Republicans to get a count of how many people wanted to see his speech but now can't because of the smaller venue, so they can get a count of how full (or, as far as they are concerned, how empty) the stadium would have been. (Of course, this doesn't take into account the people that would have taken buses to the speech but didn't because there was now no room for them.)
As for "God and Jerusalem" (I don't know about God, but one of the changes was to put "We consider Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, at least until Israel and Palestine can work it out for themselves" back into the platform), my current "joke of the day" is that the excuse they are using for saying that 2/3 of the delegates agreed to it despite how the voice vote sounded was because Michael Moore had convinced the chairman that the "no" votes were coming from "five people standing next to the microphones making it sound like half of the audience was against it".
I love me a good conspiracy theory. Do tell!! Why is it not 99%? Why merely 98%?Quote: AZDuffmanThough there was a 98% chance Obama could not fill the place.
Quote: s2dbakerI love me a good conspiracy theory. Do tell!! Why is it not 99%? Why merely 98%?
"73% of statistics you find on the internet are made up." -Abraham Lincoln
Quote: FarFromVegasThe forecast for today is 80%. Obama takes the stage tonight, not tomorrow.
The storms should start in about an hour.
You are right in that I should have said today, swing shif makes you off track.
Doesn't matter, though. It was moved because they could not fill it. If they were worried about rain they would not have booked it in the first place.
If they were worried about not filling it, they wouldn't have booked the stadium in the first place. People were offering cash for tix on Craigs List. Az is going to believe what he needs to believe and that's okay.Quote: AZDuffmanYou are right in that I should have said today, swing shif makes you off track.
Doesn't matter, though. It was moved because they could not fill it. If they were worried about rain they would not have booked it in the first place.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou are right in that I should have said today, swing shif makes you off track.
Doesn't matter, though. It was moved because they could not fill it. If they were worried about rain they would not have booked it in the first place.
So the RNC shouldn't have booked Tampa at the height of hurricane season!
Weather happens. You roll with it.
This is what happens when you get a party that's made up of a bunch of factions rather than a cohesive ideology (at least a less cohesive ideology). Majority blacks, but support abortion and gay marriage. Labor endorsements and money, but support of illegal immigration. The Republican party has a few similar contradictions, Rockefeller vs. Reagan/Goldwater is the main historical one. Libertarians are just a joke and need to change parties. With Republicans, it's mostly about the emphasis being on one thing over another (less about social issues and more about economic ones). With Democrats, it's just down right funny.
DNC debacle
Quote: AZDuffmanIt was moved because they could not fill it.
If this was true (which, as I said, I seriously doubt), it would be ironic, since it's a page out of a Republican's playbook - Senate candidate Linda McMahon's husband did the same thing back in 1992. WrestleMania 7 was originally scheduled for the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, but this was in one of professional wrestling's "down" periods, and, weeks before the event, it was obvious they would be lucky to fill 1/3 of the stadium. so they moved it to the LA Sports Arena and said that it was done "for security reasons." (I also joked that neither excuse was true, but the real reason for the move was, Al Davis refused to relinquish control of the stadium's luxury boxes (that he got as part of the deal to move the Raiders to LA) to McMahon for the event.)
Quote: ahiromu
This is what happens when you get a party that's made up of a bunch of factions rather than a cohesive ideology (at least a less cohesive ideology).
And this is what happens get when get a party that adheres strictly to the ideology:
I prefer the American way myself, as messy at it gets.
As Will Rogers once said (eight times a week including Wednesday matinees) "I don't belong to any organized party. I'm a Democrat."Quote: FarFromVegasI prefer the American way myself, as messy at it gets.
Quote: FarFromVegasAnd this is what happens get when get a party that adheres strictly to the ideology:
I prefer the American way myself, as messy at it gets.
And we have the Godwin's Law loser for the day! And it isn't even 1030EDT yet!
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: FarFromVegasAnd this is what happens get when get a party that adheres strictly to the ideology:
I prefer the American way myself, as messy at it gets.
And we have the Godwin's Law loser for the day! And it isn't even 1030EDT yet!
I actually considered mentioning Godwin myself!
We already had Communism come up this morning, so I figured, what the heck...
Quote: FarFromVegas
I actually considered mentioning Godwin myself!
We already had Communism come up this morning, so I figured, what the heck...
Well, one must know the difference between calling something communist or fascist and coparing to Nazis. The nazis were not the only fascist form of government, just the most famous. In WWII Italy was fascist, as was Japan though in a more "Japanese" format. Today fascism seems to get mixed with socialism in places like Venezuela, or mixed with a strong Islamic system as in Iran.
Quote: AZDuffmanWell, one must know the difference between calling something communist or fascist and coparing to Nazis. The nazis were not the only fascist form of government, just the most famous. In WWII Italy was fascist, as was Japan though in a more "Japanese" format. Today fascism seems to get mixed with socialism in places like Venezuela, or mixed with a strong Islamic system as in Iran.
My mom left Germany after the war and never went back. She was the world's biggest Libertarian once she became a citizen and could vote. Demanding adherence to party ideology over dissenting ideas is comparable to Nazis, and Facism.
I do indeed know the difference.
Quote: FarFromVegasDemanding adherence to party ideology over dissenting ideas is comparable to Nazis, and Facism.
Kind of like demanding support for abortion and gay marrige from your party members?
Quote: AZDuffmanKind of like demanding support for abortion and gay marrige from your party members?
If someone can explain this to me, it's something I've been wondering. So if the fetus is unwanted then you can terminate it at a whim because it's unwanted. On the other hand, if the mother wants it and then the fetus is lost, it's murder? So the decision of whether or not the fetus is a life is dependent on whether or not it's wanted? That's how the law stands in many states right now.
I'm honest to god not trying to start the abortion debate. I'm just wondering if anyone can explain the logic behind it (falty or not).
Quote: AZDuffmanKind of like demanding support for abortion and gay marrige from your party members?
More like demanding members sign a no-tax pledge.
Requesting and demanding are two different things. You can see which party has members saying "Hell, no!" to demands if you read the first post in this thread.
Quote: FarFromVegasMore like demanding members sign a no-tax pledge.
I don't recall the GOP demanding a no-tax pledge be signed by anybody. Some support groups do, and good for them. We are Taxed Enough Already.
Though I do recall PA Gov Bob Casey was denied a speaking role at the DNC Convention in 1992 because he was not pro-abortion.
Quote: AZDuffmanI don't recall the GOP demanding a no-tax pledge be signed by anybody. Some support groups do, and good for them. We are Taxed Enough Already.
Though I do recall PA Gov Bob Casey was denied a speaking role at the DNC Convention in 1992 because he was not pro-abortion.
Or because he didn't endorse Clinton.
They let others who are anti-abortion speak in '92--Breaux and Heflin come to mind.
Quote: FarFromVegasOr because he didn't endorse Clinton.
They let others who are anti-abortion speak in '92--Breaux and Heflin come to mind.
Neither did Jerry Brown, yet he spoke in a prominent role. It is widely accepted not having a pro-abortion stance cost Casey a speaking slot. Govenor of a major battlegorund state, surely that was more important than Moonbeam. (and yes, I know Brown was a candidate for the nomination)
Quote: AZDuffmanNeither did Jerry Brown, yet he spoke in a prominent role. It is widely accepted not having a pro-abortion stance cost Casey a speaking slot. Govenor of a major battlegorund state, surely that was more important than Moonbeam. (and yes, I know Brown was a candidate for the nomination)
It's pretty hard to endorse someone when you're still running yourself. He actually received votes during that convention!
98% of Republican talking points are "widely accepted" - John Q. AdamsQuote: FarFromVegasP.S. "Widely accepted"--good one! I'll use that in all my future arguments.
Quote: RonCI think the Democrats made a horrible decision yesterday when they took to the floor of the convention and offered an amendment adding two words--God and Jerusalem--back to their platform. It made for a really bad looking moment on TV--first, just having to bring it up, and then the voice vote being way less decisive than they thought it would turn out. It looked like the presiding officer was lost, the voice vote was not acceptable, and he was told to just declare it adopted.
The question I have is this--was the controversy being generated about those two words not being in their platform worth the solution to the issue they provided?
--There is a pretty large contingent of delegates who don't support the words being in the platform
--They seemed to be responding more to the criticism by the other side than to any real change in policy
Though I personally believe in God and think it should be part of the platform and I also belief that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of Israel, that is not the discussion here--this is more of a question of the issue presented (those words not being in the platform) and the solution (did it make it better or worse)...
This thread is way off track...does anyone have a comment on the actual subject of the thread?
The only people who care are voting against Obama anyway.Quote: RonCThis thread is way off track...does anyone have a comment on the actual subject of the thread?
Quote: s2dbakerThe only people who care are voting against Obama anyway.
The question is not "who" you will vote for...the question is was this event a mistake and/or should it have been done differently. This isn't all about who you are for or against; it is about the whole theater of politics. Both sides will have things happen; it is interesting to talk about how issues are handled.
Quote: FarFromVegasAnd this is what happens get when get a party that adheres strictly to the ideology:
I prefer the American way myself, as messy at it gets.
Bearing in mind that Godwin's law has, as noted, been breached, and the argument therefore forfeited, I did want to point out that you seem to be misremembering the reasons behind the popularity of the Nazi ideology, which was greatly indebted to its messiness. The name of the party reflects this: National (right) Socialist (left) German (right) Workers (left) Party. And that's not even considering the messiness of their ingratiating themselves with the aristocracy and the military.
What was this thread about again? The last night of Proms, right? "Did not those feet, in ancient time ...."
Quote: FarFromVegasOr because he didn't endorse Clinton.
They let others who are anti-abortion speak in '92--Breaux and Heflin come to mind.
We are trying to have an intelligent discussion here. PLEASE refrain from confusing the issues with facts.
With that in mind, this should not be the first thread on the subject. The rule change debacle last week to kick the Paulites to the curb of the republican convention was much more disruptive and embarrassing.Quote: RonCThe question is not "who" you will vote for...the question is was this event a mistake and/or should it have been done differently. This isn't all about who you are for or against; it is about the whole theater of politics. Both sides will have things happen; it is interesting to talk about how issues are handled.
Quote: s2dbakerThe only people who care are voting against Obama anyway.
So you are saying about 53% of the nation cares?
And the rest of of us are gargling fetus parts :)Quote: AZDuffmanSo you are saying about 53% of the nation cares?
HUGE mistake by the Dems. Even if the plan was to force it down the delegates' throats, it should have been split up to two separate votes. I have no doubt that a chunk of the "no" votes were actually about god, but they were definitely a minority. The mass majority of the "no"s were about Jerusalem, but now they've given the Republicans a huge talking point that will take some steam out of what should be their week.
Also, the ad should have been more direct and used the word "denied". For those that don't know, it was an obvious reference to Jesus telling Peter that he would deny him three times before the next morning.
Quote: s2dbakerWith that in mind, this should not be the first thread on the subject. The rule change debacle last week to kick the Paulites to the curb of the republican convention was much more disruptive and embarrassing.
We could well discuss that in another thread. This thread is not supposed to be about gargling fetuses, how good/bad a particular candidate is doing, or what color underwear you have on this fine day. It is about one particular day at one particular convention and how big (or little) you think the issue we are discussing is to the party's image.
Interestingly, part of the confusion might have been the teleprompter being loaded with the predetermined ansswer. When the voice vote (a very scientifc measure) did not turn out with the correct volumes, you saw a politician befuddled by an unexpected result.
Was it funny?
Does it hurt the party?
Does it show confusion in the party?
(s2d, I do understand there were both things that happened at the Republican convention and some others that happened at the Democrat convention; I just wanted to talk about this one. Start your own thread to discuss all of them...)
in hell they would fill this stadium. And because of Clint
Eastwood, they couldn't take a chance of there being
even one empty seat, the RNC and the media would have
been all over it.
What I loved was the DNC spokesman who said 'this is
a big venue, filling it would be a problem for anybody'.
HUH? During the football season, its sold out for every
home game months in advance.
Quote: EvenBob
What I loved was the DNC spokesman who said 'this is
a big venue, filling it would be a problem for anybody'.
HUH? During the football season, its sold out for every
home game months in advance.
And for NASCAR three times as many show up, if not more.
Quote: RonCThis thread is way off track...does anyone have a comment on the actual subject of the thread?
In 2008, Democrats wrote, We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.
The idiot who took the word God out of that bland statement is to blame. By removing it, he called attention to the issue.
-----------------
The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 is a public law of the United States passed by the 104th Congress on October 23, 1995. It was passed for the purposes of initiating and funding the relocation of the Embassy of the United States in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, no later than May 31, 1999, and attempted to withhold 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the State Department specifically for Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad as allocated in fiscal year 1999 until the United States Embassy in Jerusalem had officially opened.
For the Democratic platform to declare that Jerusalem the capital of Israel is still a far cry from complying with the law. I should note that Republican President Bush also had no intention of complying with the law.
The United States maintains a consulate in Jerusalem that deals primarily with the Palestinian Authority, while relations with the Israeli government are handled from the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv. The US maintains six buildings in Jerusalem with a staff of 471.
But other countries do have consulate in Jerusalem, including Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden, U.K., Turkey and the Holy See.
Only Paraguay (and now Bolivia) have their embassies in a wealthy suburb of Jerusalem. The suburb is within the 1949 Armistice Agreement line (by a few miles), and a few miles outside of Jerusalem municipality line. I don't know if it is a cost saving move.
Quote: RonCWe could well discuss that in another thread. This thread is not supposed to be about gargling fetuses, how good/bad a particular candidate is doing, or what color underwear you have on this fine day. It is about one particular day at one particular convention and how big (or little) you think the issue we are discussing is to the party's image.
Interestingly, part of the confusion might have been the teleprompter being loaded with the predetermined ansswer. When the voice vote (a very scientifc measure) did not turn out with the correct volumes, you saw a politician befuddled by an unexpected result.
Was it funny?
Does it hurt the party?
Does it show confusion in the party?
(s2d, I do understand there were both things that happened at the Republican convention and some others that happened at the Democrat convention; I just wanted to talk about this one. Start your own thread to discuss all of them...)
It doesn't matter how hard you try to keep it on topic, ANY political thread you start here will devolve into AZDuffman* and s2dbaker* bickering about fetuses and the like. Accept it, move on, and attempt to carry on your on-topic debate around them.
*Sorry, there are plenty of other thread-drifters here. This comment was mostly to poke fun as I try to stay out of the political thread. I hold no ill will toward either poster mentioned in this post, just seems like a pattern.
