2012 Democratic National Convention, Sept 3-6, Dicussion Thread

[Arbo]

Peter Schiff Goes Undercover at DNC, Pushes Popular Ban on Corporate Profits

And these are "mainstream" Democrats, not just Occutards! Un-freaking-believable!

If they ever get what they want, I wonder if they'd be smart enough realize they screwed themselves.

Probably not, they'd still blame it on Bush or something.

 

[Arbo]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

To be fair Arbo both sides take facts out of context and use them to attack the other side. That is how politics works. I'm not saying they are right, but that is how it has been done for centuries.

Um, that's what the article says, but the focus is when it comes to actual personal attacks, that is attacks on the character of each other, Obama leads the way vs Romney.

But nice shot at trying to down play that truth.

 

[teamosil]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

Um, that's what the article says, but the focus is when it comes to actual personal attacks, that is attacks on the character of each other, Obama leads the way vs Romney.

But nice shot at trying to down play that truth.

Not really. That's only "true" if you only look at the attacks actually lodged by the actual campaigns. Obviously the insane vomittrain of personal attacks against Obama from the tea party types that has been going on for 3 years without stop now is a historically unprecedented level millions of times higher than anything either campaign is launching directly.

 

[Conservative]

It became the president's responsibility from the moment he walked into the white house. But fixing the worst financial crisis since the great depression is no easy task. The fact of the matter is the economy was going downhill then. But is slowly climbing up right now. I agree that it is nowhere near as it was before the crisis. I also know that obama can't solely be attributed to this improvement, but I also suggest that he can't solely be attributed to the slow recovery either. That's why I suggest looking at the specific things he has done and how they affected the economy.

How do you know it was the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? Where you around in 81-82? If not you weren't aware of the worst financial crisis for the American people. Reagan fixed it in less than 4 years and Obama has failed

 

[ldl]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

Um, that's what the article says, but the focus is when it comes to actual personal attacks, that is attacks on the character of each other, Obama leads the way vs Romney.

But nice shot at trying to down play that truth.

Yes I agree that Obama uses more personal attacks. I don't agree with personal attacks that don't make sense either and I also agree that some of the democrat's remarks don't have much merit to them. I am merely suggesting that Republicans also use personal attacks, some of which don't make sense at all. I don't see how Obama can be socialist if most independent sources consider him to be moderate.

 

[Conservative]

If you're results oriented, how do you reconcile your support for the Republican party with the following facts:

1) Almost twice as many private sector jobs have been created in the last 51 years when Democrats have been in the whitehouse as when Republicans have been even though Republicans have had more years to do it.
2) The GDP has grown at an average of 2.78% with Democrats in the whitehouse, but only 1.64% with Republicans in the whitehouse ever since WW2.
3) States that have been consistently led by Democrats have achieved a median income a shocking $10k higher on average than states that have been consistently led by Republicans.
4) The stock market has grown at almost FIVE TIMES the rate under Democrats as it has under Republicans for 85 years now.
5) The debt has grown more under Republican presidents than under Democratic presidents.
6) The last Republican president we had started two wars and the current Democratic president ended two wars.
7) Health care costs have been rising more slowly since Obamacare was enacted than ever in the past 50 years.

The "results" you say you're looking at aren't results, they're just the current condition of the country. The entire world is experiencing a recession right now. The US is weathering it far better than almost any other first world countries. What you're saying just boils down to "I vote for the opposite party during recessions" which isn't the same thing as being results oriented at all. In fact, when the recession started not during a Democratic administration, but during a Republican one, that is the opposite of being results oriented.

Do you realize that is partisan BS and ignores the affects Congress and the President have on the economy. Your loyalty to the Democrats doesn't change the economic results today which you want to ignore. Nothing you have said or ever posted changes the reality that I have posted and bls.gov, bea.gov, and the Treasury department show. Let me know what your post has to do with the current results?>

 

[ldl]

How do you know it was the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? Where you around in 81-82? If not you weren't aware of the worst financial crisis for the American people. Reagan fixed it in less than 4 years and Obama has failed

Well most economists agree that this was the second worst financial crisis since the great depression. I also have to point out that it can be argued that the 81-82 financial crisis could have been fixed due to the lowering of the interest rate. Doing the same thing right now wouldn't really help much because the banks are sitting of excess reserves. Again I suggest looking at specific policies instead of observing the economy at the president's time.

 

[teamosil]

Do you realize that is partisan BS and ignores the affects Congress and the President have on the economy. Your loyalty to the Democrats doesn't change the economic results today which you want to ignore. Nothing you have said or ever posted changes the reality that I have posted and bls.gov, bea.gov, and the Treasury department show. Let me know what your post has to do with the current results?>

Ok, so if I understand correctly, your position is three propositions:

1) You are voting against Obama because you are results oriented and you don't think the results have been good under Obama
2) Presidents don't cause economic results, so we should not consider results when deciding who to vote for
3) The radically better performance under Democrats is just one massive string of huge coincidences stacked one on top of the other

Is that correct?

 

[Arbo]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

Not really. That's only "true" if you only look at the attacks actually lodged by the actual campaigns.

Which is exactly what the article did. It is true, Obama has gone down the route of personal attacks, Romney has not. Again someone on the left trying to divert from that....

 

[HoongLoong]

I suspect they will push back on Romney's false claim that Obama is taking $716 billion from Medicare.
I suspect they will show Vouchercare, Ryancare will hurt seniors.
I suspect they will expose Romney for saying Obama has dropped work requirements for Welfare.

It's so ease to predict what The Monumental, Mendacious, Racist, Commie/Socialist Fraud Obama and his despicable surrogates are going to puke out.....Or, try to fabricate. However, admittedly, their scams are so perfidious that it just boggles one's mind with what arrogance they play us.

(1) Obama simply robbed Medicare out of 716 Billion to PARTIALLY pay for Obamacare. OIt aont easy to subsidize 15 MILLION Illegal Immigrants, as well as his solid base consisting of the Dregs of Society: the drug addicts, drunks, , IOW, the parasites that every Society inherits as part of its existence, the professional welfare bozos. Then we have those that could afford Insurance but choose not to pay for it .....now they are subsidized by Obama....and, of course, will be his bought solid base.

(2) Ryancare provides the necessary safety net. And, whatever it takes from Medicare it puts it, IN TOTO, in a TRUST FUND, s that Medicare doesn't go BANKRUPT !!! Which it will as well as the country with Obama splashing money around to anyone who needs it, WITH MONEY WE DON'T HAVE......AND ......providing they will re-elect him. THEN: ....APRES MOI LE DELUGE !!!

(3) The Revised Workmen Compensation had the pesky new clause that required those that want to get Welfare to prove that they meet certain standards in attempting to find WORK. Well, Obama being a professional Rabble Rouser employed by the Criminal Enterprise ACORN indicted in 13+ States by the FBI for VOTER FRAUD, and/or RELATED IRREGULARITIES ..... ACORN, turned out to be a vote getting machine supposedly bi-partisan but actively and exclusively a DEM private entity subsidized with DEM patronage regularly collected the drug addicts, drunks and Society's Parasites offa the street and carted them into VOTING BOOTHS by the TRUCKLOAD.

So what does our semi-Athletic Golf and Basketballing Ghandi, the personification of concern for the working people and the downtrodden do?....PROVIDING THEY VOTE FOR HIM. This creative Political Charlatan RE-DEFINES the definition of WORK.

I didn't personally study the RE-DEFINITIONS because of my time restraints, but I had the chance to just glance at them cursorily from a reliable source's results of his analysis.

The following are, basically, Obama's new definitions for WORK .....with the ala OBummer touch: a) taking regular naps ....nothing like appearing for work not being tired. Or, b) Getting a massage. Or, c) helping a friend. Or, d) Taking a bath (after all it pays not to stink even if theoretically one would go to work). e) appear without liquor on one's breath .......I stopped reading because it was so comical I was rolling on the floor laughing........ then, I realized what this Mendacious POS did.....and I began weeping copiously.

 

[Arbo]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

Yes I agree that Obama uses more personal attacks. I don't agree with personal attacks that don't make sense either and I also agree that some of the democrat's remarks don't have much merit to them. I am merely suggesting that Republicans also use personal attacks, some of which don't make sense at all. I don't see how Obama can be socialist if most independent sources consider him to be moderate.

You agree, then divert, then go into a totally bizarre and strange conclusion.

 

[Conservative]

Ok, so if I understand correctly, your position is three propositions:

1) You are voting against Obama because you are results oriented and you don't think the results have been good under Obama
2) Presidents don't cause economic results, so we should not consider results when deciding who to vote for
3) The radically better performance under Democrats is just one massive string of huge coincidences stacked one on top of the other

Is that correct?

Exactly, he has exactly the leadership skills his resume said he has. Do you realize he hasn't met with this Jobs' Council since January, that isn't leadership

The President sets the economic tone and this President has done nothing but divide and try to destroy incentive.

The so called improvement under Democrats ignore that Republicans controlled the Congress from 1994 to 2000 so with Reagan in charge between 1981-1988, GHW Bush in charge between 1989-92, and Bush in charge from 2001-2008 not sure where you get your information.

 

[ldl]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

You agree, then divert, then go into a totally bizarre and strange conclusion.

Hey im not a democrat here. I'm AGREE that Obama uses personal attacks in his campaign. I'm saying that Republicans (not exactly the Romney campaign) do it too. See the beginning of HoongLoong post as an example. Do you really believe Obama is a socialist? That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. And to clarify I'm just laying down the facts here. Not taking one side or the other on this particular issue.

 

[teamosil]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

Which is exactly what the article did. It is true, Obama has gone down the route of personal attacks, Romney has not. Again someone on the left trying to divert from that....

Nobody is trying to divert from that. That's true. But, obviously, when you consider the overall picture, the reason why is obvious, right? It is because the right has already maxed out the level of personal attacks they can lodge against Obama. Piles and piles of conspiracy theories, some of the most despicable insults one could possibly dream up, etc, etc, etc, on and on for years now. So adding to that pile doesn't really help Romney. But, on the left there are no teabaggers, so Romney has been pretty much unscathed on a personal level, so Obama needs to cover that turf. As a result, yeah, technically, he is doing more personal attacks than Romney, but the left is still only doing like 1% of the personal attacks that the right has done.

 

[teamosil]

Exactly

Ok, so you admit that you think we should count economic results against presidents when they are bad results and the presidents are Democrats, but that we should not count bad results against Republicans nor good results for Democrats. Is that correct?

It just appears that you're being hyperpartisan. Overall, the results are way better for Democrats, but you like Republicans better, so you think we should ignore the results when they contradict your political preferences.

The President sets the economic tone and this President has done nothing but divide and try to destroy incentive.

Er, wait, before you said you were results oriented. Now you're just going off silly slogans. Which is it? Are you driven by actual results? Or by slogans?

The so called improvement under Democrats ignore that Republicans controlled the Congress from 1994 to 2000 so with Reagan in charge between 1981-1988, GHW Bush in charge between 1989-92, and Bush in charge from 2001-2008 not sure where you get your information.

Yeah, that's point #3- you believe it is all just a 50-90 year long string of coincidences.

 

[Porchev]

Re: Bill Clinton rips the GOP and sounded great doing it.

...

 

[poweRob]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

1. that statement is not hypocritical.

2. certainly not as hypocritical as a party focusing it's convention on womens' rights in between paeans to Bill Clinton and Teddy Kennedy.

yeah I was kind of assuming that the writer of it has had sex before and not for procreation. If he never hasn't, I truly apologize.

 

[Amigo]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

Too bad that does not address nor refute my point, especially considering that there is no reference for what the chart is even measuring. Are you trying to show fewer UFO sightings since Obama took office?

That is the Labor Force Participation rate.

 

[Amigo]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

Hey im not a democrat here. I'm AGREE that Obama uses personal attacks in his campaign. I'm saying that Republicans (not exactly the Romney campaign) do it too. See the beginning of HoongLoong post as an example. Do you really believe Obama is a socialist? That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. And to clarify I'm just laying down the facts here. Not taking one side or the other on this particular issue.

For one, he's a commie. Different.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

For one, he's a commie. Different.

Here we go again.

Communist, marxist, socialist.

Can't you people be consistent?

 

[Conservative]

Ok, so you admit that you think we should count economic results against presidents when they are bad results and the presidents are Democrats, but that we should not count bad results against Republicans nor good results for Democrats. Is that correct?

It just appears that you're being hyperpartisan. Overall, the results are way better for Democrats, but you like Republicans better, so you think we should ignore the results when they contradict your political preferences.



Er, wait, before you said you were results oriented. Now you're just going off silly slogans. Which is it? Are you driven by actual results? Or by slogans?



Yeah, that's point #3- you believe it is all just a 50-90 year long string of coincidences.

What does political party have to do with the results? It is all about leadership or in Obama's case the lack of leadership. Try using the Obama defense in the real world in a real job?

I find it quite interesting how many people blame Bush for the recession of 2007-2009 and still blame him for the poor recovery and results in 2012. I am waiting for any Obama supporter to explain the results in 2012 and why Obama deserves four more years. Why does anyone believe that the next four years will be any different than the last four?

 

[Amigo]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

Yay... an "abstinence is the only way" hypocrisy statement.

No, but Chastity is.

 

[ldl]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

For one, he's a commie. Different.

No he's not a commie. I don't know where some people get that idea.

 

[Amigo]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

No he's not a commie. I don't know where some people get that idea.

Gee, I can't imagine....maybe because he IS. :doh

 

[a351]

Re: Sandra Fluke speech was amazing!

Yikes, look at the crackpots slithering out of the woodworks like cockroaches. Scary stuff.