Democratic National Convention

Scott Horowitz | July 27, 2004
So, I just turned on the Convention tonight (after Mariano Riveira blew his 2nd save in a row (seriously what's up with him??)) Anyways, I turned on the convention just in time to see Senator Clinton speak. While I both respect and support the senator, I couldn't help but laugh. Of any current democrat, she has the most to gain by Bush winning a 2nd term. It will give her a much better chance to become President in 4 years.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the convention?

Mike Eberhart | July 27, 2004
Other than I'm not watching it.... snooze fest.........

Really, it's late and I'm actually going to bed. :)

Smiley just for you Eric.

Anna Gregoline | July 27, 2004
I doubt very highly (unfortunately) that Hillary will ever become President, and certainly not in 4 years. I tend to think we'll have a person of color in the White House before a woman.

Erik Bates | July 27, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | July 27, 2004
Personally I'd love to see a black, woman, lesbian, Jewish single mother as president. who's with me?

Anna Gregoline | July 27, 2004
Condoleeza won't make it either.

I'd love it too, Scott H. Unfortunately once again, I don't think we'll see that particular combination in our lifetime.

Jackie Mason | July 27, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 27, 2004
Kerry picking Hillary would have been the kiss of death for him. No way would he have done that.

Here's the transcript of Clinton's speech, if anyone is interested.

Mike Eberhart | July 27, 2004
Good article I found on another forum.

"More brilliance from Ann Coulter, dropped from USA Today DNC coverage"


Put The Speakers In A Cage
July 26, 2004

Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.

Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists -- with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs.

A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it's a real mystery why cops wouldn't like Democrats.

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it's because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it's no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall. Sadly, they won't be fighting to the death as is done in W.W.F. caged matches. They're calling this the "protestor's area," although I suppose a better name would be the "truth-free zone".

I thought this was a great idea until I realized the nut category did not include Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Teddy Kennedy -- all featured speakers at the convention. I'd say the actual policy is only untelegenic nuts get the cages, but little Dennis Kucinich is speaking at the Convention, too. So it must be cages for nuts who have not run for president as serious candidates for the Democratic Party.

Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. W've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting Allah Akbar! Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.

With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying digital "Brown Shirts" to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush -- in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.

The last former government official to slake his thirst so deeply with the kool-aid and become a far-left peacenik was Ramsey Clarke and it took him a few years to really blossom. Clinton must have done some number on Gore. Then again, with his yen for earth tones in a man's wardrobe, maybe Gore's references to "Brown Shirts" was intended as a compliment.

Only one major newspaper -- the Boston Herald -- reported Gore's Brown Shirt comment, though a Bush campaign spokesman's statement quoting the "Brown Shirt" line made it into the very last sentence of a Los Angeles Times article. The New York Times responded with an article criticizing both Republicans and Democrats for using Nazi imagery. Democrats call Republicans Nazis, the Republicans quote the Democrats calling Republicans Nazis and both are using Nazi imagery. (It's a cycle of violence!)

The nuts in the cages are virtual Bertrand Russells compared to the official speakers at the Democratic Convention. On the basis of their placards, I gather the caged-nut position is that they love the troops so much, they don't want them to get hurt defending America from terrorist attack. Support the troops, the signs say, bring them home.

That's my new position on all government workers, except the 5% who aren't useless, which is to say cops, prosecutors, firemen and U.S. servicemen. I love bureaucrats at the National Endowment of the Arts funding crucifixes submerged in urine so much -- I think they should go home. I love public school teachers punishing any mention of God and banning Christmas songs so much -- I think they should go home.

Walking back from the convention site I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks -- who must have identified me through our covert system of signals. He was mostly bemused by the Democrats' primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the American.

I'd say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don't. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.

Anna Gregoline | July 27, 2004
Mike, that's not an article. That's cruel mud-slinging for no reason. This topic wasn't created in that spirit, I'd hate to see it dissolve so quickly.

Mike Eberhart | July 27, 2004
Here's the thing, I didn't even find that article on a political forum. It was on a sports forum that I read... Kind of weird....

Anna Gregoline | July 27, 2004
I wouldn't have expected you to find that on a political forum - it has no real content. It's just mean and I'm sorry I saw any of it. Why would you post such an ugly thing on Tragic Comedy?

Mike Eberhart | July 27, 2004
Because it's "Tragic"..... :)

Anna Gregoline | July 27, 2004
It's mean for the sake of being mean. I don't get it.

Mike Eberhart | July 27, 2004
Honestly, it doesn't bother me at all. Of course I'm not the PC type. If you take it that way, then it will bother you. I, however, found it amusing. But that's just me.

Melissa Erin | July 27, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 27, 2004
I didn't find it amusing - it was just a slam-filled piece. What's the point of posting that? It appeared you deliberatly posted it to slam liberals, and this post wasn't even in any kind of argument. I just don't understand that kind of mean-spiritedness.

Tragic Comedy is a friendly place!

Mike Eberhart | July 27, 2004
I don't know, Melissa found it amusing. I guess she's a fellow conservative too. I could be wrong. But like I said, if your PC, then you won't like it at all, much like you do. However, if you are like me, then you find it amusing. That's all. I figured since this was a topic about the Convention, and I found this item talking about the convention, I'd post it. That was all I was thinking. This is the first time that I can actually post something like that because, as you all know, I usually am outgunned on this board (politics-wise) and get put into place pretty fast. So I thought I would stir it up a little bit.

Mike Eberhart | July 27, 2004
Also, I figured that I would get the first few licks in since the Democratic convention is first. I know that when the Republican convention happens in August, this board will be slamming it pretty hard. So, I figured I'd do a little fighting back.

Overall, don't take it too seriously....

Anna Gregoline | July 27, 2004
Stir what up? What's the point?

I still don't get it.

Oh wait - you just want people to get upset about it? That's REALLY weird.

At any rate, it had nothing to do with the topic at hand, except that it was related to the convention. The entire point of the "article" was to call liberals names. I fail to see how that's relevant.

Continue, if you must. Cheap shots are just that - cheap. This board is for real discussion, and I'm proud to be a part of that.

Mike Eberhart | July 27, 2004
Oh yeah, I've been on the other end of the real discussions before... I just chose to mix it up a little.

Anna Gregoline | July 27, 2004
That's your choice. I don't have to be silent about it, however. I think it stinks and is against the spirit of this board.

Mike Eberhart | July 27, 2004
And what is the spirit of this board? I'll stop posting on this thread because I don't want to drag it along so it can get back on topic.

Anna Gregoline | July 27, 2004
The spirit of this board includes not calling people names because they believe in something you don't - which is what that "article" did. We've always been able to have discussions here - no one has ever posted something saying that all conservatives are the "Spawn of Satan" or "fascist, racist pigs," which is what that "article" said right away. If someone had posted something like that about conservatives, I'd be just as quick to point out that it's not a nice thing to do and not something I like to see on this board.

I might be alone in this, but I hope not. I've always seen Tragic Comedy as much friendlier than that.

Melissa Erin | July 27, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | July 28, 2004
I understand what you said about the issues, Melissa. But, just because he's republican, all the issues don't mean a lot. I am a Democrat, I'm proud to admit it. If this election were between John McCain and John Kerry, I'd be voting for John McCain. I don't always stick to the party lines.

Unfortunately, the Constitution won't allow Clinton to run for office again, and at first I was voting for Kerry because I feel (and still do) that we need to get Bush out of office. But I started reading his website this week, and actually agree with a lot of his views.

But, anyways I digress (I tend to do that a lot). What Bush has done to this country is a travesty. The fact that he and Cheney are directly profiting off of the events of September 11 is a disgrace to all the people who died that day. Do you think it is a coincidence that every contract in Iraq was given to Halliburton, the company that Dick Cheney was CEO of before he became Vice President. There are 2 things I don't believe in: coincidence and leprechauns. (BTW, that's a quote from a TV show, props to anyone who can guess which one)

Mike's article was amusing. I could find one that will describe Republicans in the same light, but I don't like that. Both parties of guilty of mudslinging, and I think that's the worst way to win an election.

That's my rant for the time being. I'll write more after I see Reagan speak tonight.

Erik Bates | July 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Melissa Erin | July 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | July 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | July 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | July 28, 2004
I must say, I really enjoyed Reagans speech. Stem Cell research has been made "illegal" because of 1 thing, Bush's religious views. This country was founded on Seperation of Church and State, which Mr. Bush seems to forget. He established June 6 as a state-wide holiday in Texas, Jesus Day (a day for someone to show their love for Jesus). Mr. Bush seems to forget there are more than just Christians in this country.

Stem Cell Research could provide cures for hundreds of diseases. With the way , they are banning this research, it is reminiscent of the days of Copernicus and Galileo. I think it was Copernicus who said the earth went around the sun , and he was labeled a heritic(it's been a while since 10th grade history class). Or what about Darwin? Do we remember the Scopes-Monkey Trial? Science has proven fact time and time again, while the religious community serves to discredit it.

Steve West | July 28, 2004
The religious community does not uniformly serve to discredit scientific achievement. Galileo himself was a devout Catholic. It was his life's mission to use scientific principles to prove Biblical truths. Many religious leaders today are, sadly, not as enlightened.
(BTW - Buffy the Vampire Slayer).

Scott Horowitz | July 28, 2004
I wasn't talking about the entire religious community (I apologize if I offended anyone). I think you got the point I was trying to make though, Steve. I'm impressed with the catch on the Buffy quote.

Scott Hardie | July 28, 2004
I'm with Melissa's comment at 17:28. Mike is tired of liberals dominating every political discussion we have here, and so is Melissa, and so am I. It stems from our general loquacity, and our tendency never to give up the last word. I'm proud to be a liberal, and yet even I'm tired of debating politics with Anna and Jackie and especially Kris all the time, so I can only imagine how Mike and other conservatives feel. :-) But like Melissa, while I'm glad to see things stirred up, I too wish it hadn't been with something so ugly and intentionally hurtful. :-\

Not much to say about the DNC itself, sadly. Kerry disappoints me by lacking the fire in the belly demonstrated so charismatically by Howard Dean prior to his media-assisted meltdown, but more seriously by beginning to follow the trend established by Gore four years ago: No matter how terrible the candidate running against him, he just can't muster enough charisma and competence to win what should be a no-brainer election. For liberals, we now know Bush to be the disaster we only suspected him to be four years ago, and yet Kerry is polling even worse than Gore did back then. I don't mind four years of a Republican White House in general, but I do dread four more years of a Bush White House in particular, and the apathy of my fellows will bring it to pass this November.

As long as I'm on the subject: Fuck Ralph Nader.

Scott Horowitz | July 28, 2004
I agree with what you are saying about Kerry, Scott. He doesn't have the pizzazz (sp?) that Clinton had 12 years ago. Clinton can still captivate an entire room with his speeches. He has something that neither Bush, Gore, nor Kerry have: Charisma

Check out this website


Oh and yes, Fuck Ralph Nader, Fuck him in his stupid ear!

Anna Gregoline | July 28, 2004
Did I ever say I didn't want to hear another viewpoint? I only ask that it be respectful and non-name-calling, which isn't that much to ask.

By all means, Mike, post away, just please don't make it so hateful. Thanks.

Anna Gregoline | July 28, 2004
I wasn't the only one who found it over the top.

Lori Lancaster | July 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 28, 2004
Ann Coulter never engages in anything BUT name calling. She gives conservatives a bad name.

Erik Bates | July 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | July 28, 2004
We won't associate you with her, Erik! Promise!

Mike Eberhart | July 28, 2004
And this report about the potential first lady.....






http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3707

Mike Eberhart | July 28, 2004
Ok, I don't know how to make a damn link, so you'll just have to cut and paste it. I'm not a web guy.... Sorry...

Erik Bates | July 28, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | July 29, 2004
Anna, you've said you don't think we'll see a female president in our lifetimes, including Hillary. Do you think we'll see a woman run for president as the Democratic or Republican nominee, including Hillary?

Scott Hardie | July 29, 2004
Mike, to create a link, just put the address where the x is:

<A HREF=x>text here</A>

Jackie Mason | July 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | July 29, 2004
I agree with you, Jackie. They concentrated more on her appearance than anything else in the article. I vote for a candidate not his/her spouse. Why does what she has to say be such an important issue?

Scott Hardie | July 29, 2004
Paul Harris today: "If you make your decision on which presidential candidate to vote for based on his wife saying 'shove it' or his running mate saying 'fuck you,' do the rest of us a favor and don't even cast a ballot. There are a few more important issues in America at the moment."

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
I doubt also there will be a female nominated candidate - and forget about Hillary. People see her as bitchy and controlling (hey, I sure don't, she was a nifty first lady), and it just won't fly.

I'm with you Jackie. In a work evaluation for my sister, it was spun that her assertiveness and direct way of talking in meetings and emails was negative. She pointed out that a man would be praised for the exact same thing.

Scott Horowitz | July 29, 2004
Now I find this extremely funny

Melissa Erin | July 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | July 29, 2004
I thought Edwards spoke very well tonight. I kinda wish he was the candidate and not Kerry, but I still like Kerry. It's kinda sad what happened to his family... his eldest son dying in a car crash 8 years ago.


He has the charisma that the 3 other candidates are lacking. He's young and appeals to younger voters.

Any other opinions?

Melissa Erin | July 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | July 29, 2004
Well, if you think about it. People from NC voted Kerry for Senator, they obviously liked him. To infer, that they would vote for him/Kerry into office is not a longshot because they liked him.

And don't forget, Gore lost his home state in the last election...

John E Gunter | July 29, 2004
I'm tired of the party bashing period, whether it's Democratic or Republican. I also don't like watching either convention because both of them are all hype for the particular party. Now, I'm a registered Republican because generally, the Republican Party follows my views on things.

Make sure you notice I said generally. My big beef about politics is it's gotten completely about furthering your career. That's all! Whatever happened to serving the public?

Ah well, I guess if the next president is Democratic, we'll have to listen to 2+ years of Democrat bashing!

John

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
Yes, we will. I'm sick of it as well, which is why I've tried to say, Look, we won't agree with each other, so let's just quit. It's too tiring anymore, and I'm no longer trying to convince anyone.

John E Gunter | July 29, 2004
Wasn't trying to argue with you Anna, just stating my opinion on the subject. Isn't that partly why we have TC?

John

Anna Gregoline | July 29, 2004
Why did you think I was saying you were arguing with me? I wasn't arguing with you. I said I'm sick of it too.

John E Gunter | July 29, 2004
K. From the other discussions on the board I've read, I took your statement to mean that you thought I was trying to argue with you. :-)

Good to see that we both agree that the media bashes the current party in power to much. Guess that's just the media give us what they think we want to see. If it isn't sensational, or about something bad, obviously the public doesn't want to see it.

Come on, let's run the story about the multiple homicide hate crime serial killer again. (Note the extreme sarcasm there!) :-)

John

Scott Horowitz | July 29, 2004
The media makes a mess out of everything. From Cheney saying Fuck to another senator to Heinz Kerry telling a reporter to "Shove It." They like to twist anything anyone says to their own idealistic view points.

Erik Bates | July 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | July 29, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | July 30, 2004
Hey, I agree Erik. The Daily Show was the only news show to get the right headline for the 2000 Election. Indecision 2000

Scott Horowitz | July 30, 2004
Just watched Kerry's speech... WOW! For a man described as timid and a bad public speaker, I was impressed. I think he revitalized the Democratic agenda, and came across great!

Melissa Erin | July 30, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | July 30, 2004
It's not that the rich 1% are being punished, they are being unfavored. Every Bush tax cut has heavily favored the wealthy. He and Cheney each paid over $100,000 less in taxes this year than last year, because of his tax cuts. What Kerry is saying, that he will restructure the tax plan so the middle class actually gets a tax break, and the wealthy wind up paying a higher percentage (like they should). The burden of operating this country should rely more on the higher income people than the middle/lower (like it does now).

John E Gunter | July 30, 2004
My only problem with tax increases for the rich are, they usually don't go through. Sorry, somehow the rich manage to get that kind of thing broken before it manages to become law as it were.

Plus, the rich are the ones who invest the heaviest in free enterprise as it were. Do you really want to piss them off by increasing their taxes? Make them to mad and suddenly you'll find them not investing so heavily anymore. After all, they usually get good tax breaks for investing.

John

Scott Horowitz | July 30, 2004
The amount of money some of these people make are ridiculous. Even with higher taxes, they still make over 40 times the average American. Why should I pay a higher percentage of my salary then they do?

Anna Gregoline | July 30, 2004
I don't really understand taxes. But rich people should pay the correct percentage of their income. I don't think they should have to pay more. Doesn't really seem fair.

Scott Horowitz | July 30, 2004
Taxes are are set based on a tiered system. The higher you make the more your taxed.

Think of it this way. You have 2 people one who makes $25,000 annually and one who makes $250,000 annually. For aguments sake, let's assume each are taxed at the same rate of 25%.


The person making $25,000 brings home $18,750 after taxes, The person making $250,000 brings home $187,500 after taxes. Whiile, it is easy to live on $187,500, living on $18,750 is extremely difficult. That is why the lower income person is taxed at a lower percentage than the higher income.

Anna Gregoline | July 30, 2004
Thanks, Scott H.!

Melissa Erin | July 30, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | July 30, 2004
Melissa,
why are you pissed off at John Edwards. As a US Senator, he doesn't work for the state government. He represents NC in the US Senate. He votes on the Federal Income tax. The state income tax is determined by the state legislature, not the federal. If your pissed off at someone, yell at your local representative to the state congress as well as the governor.

Melissa Erin | July 30, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | July 30, 2004
OH, gotcha... We need to have a joking tag so people know who knows what!

Anthony Lewis | July 31, 2004
Republican Convention? BAH!

I bet they get more than three hours over four nights on broadcast TV. There were some great sppeches made during the DNC, but unless you were watching PBS or C-SPAN...you didn't see them. I wonder why? You think maybe they didn't want any "undecideds" to make up their minds? Noooooo...they wouldn't do thaaaat.

Bush's dunderhead ass will be all over my TV in late-August, and it's all by design. Liberal media my ass!

Jackie Mason | July 31, 2004
[hidden by request]

Melissa Erin | July 31, 2004
[hidden by request]

Erik Bates | August 2, 2004
[hidden by request]

Melissa Erin | August 2, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | August 7, 2004
How come this became the second-longest TC discussion ever in less than a week's time, yet as soon as I put up a big image on the main menu promoting it, no one would touch it? All we all sick of talking politics? Is it just as simple as the DNC coming to an end? I yearn to know!

Anna Gregoline | August 7, 2004
It's politics. I'm sick to death of it all. And what's left to say?

John Viola | August 7, 2004
vote early, vote often. that's all I can think of as left to say...