Democrat National Convention 2012

[Shady]

I was just reading through a list of the speakers for the DNC convention, and it's God-awful. They have one of the most unimpressive line up of speakers that I've ever seen since being interested in politics and conventions.

Here's what you're suppose to be excited for...

Cory Booker

Julian Castro

Tammy Baldwin

Kamala Harris

Linc Chafee

Nancy Pelosi

John Kerry

Jerry Brown

Charlie Crist

It's a good thing they have Bill Clinton speaking, because without him, they'd need a snooze alarm! Yikes! Somebody wake me up when it's over, and tell me how it was.

[Shady]

Sorry, I forgot Dan Malloy. He's speaking too, whoever the hell he is.

[Moonlight Graham]

Sorry, I forgot Dan Malloy. He's speaking too, whoever the hell he is.

there's a bit more than that: My link

But really, who do expect them to have speak? Bring JFK back from the dead?

They've got Eva Longoria speaking, hopefully not behind a podium!

[punked]

Sorry, I forgot Dan Malloy. He's speaking too, whoever the hell he is.

Sorry you named the thread wrong. Don't worry I will create a new thread when it starts friend and I will make sure to name it right.

[Shady]

Uh oh, looks like things are getting off to a bad start for the Dems...

Rains wash away Mount Obama in Charlotte, N.C.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — A torrential downpour that struck Charlotte Saturday afternoon damaged the Mount Rushmore-style sand sculpture bust of President Obama

Workers were trying Saturday afternoon to reform the base of the sculpture, built from sand brought in from Myrtle Beach, S.C., pounding and smoothing out the sand that had washed off the facade of the waist-up rendering of the chief executive.

WT

[Shady]

Sorry you named the thread wrong. Don't worry I will create a new thread when it starts friend and I will make sure to name it right.

What did I name wrong?

[BubberMiley]

What did I name wrong?

I believe it's called the Democratic National Convention.

[punked]

I believe it's called the Democratic National Convention.

Yep that would its official name. Don't worry though Shady we will start a new thread with out the Spam and the right title when it starts. No one expects you to get anything related to politics right. You try and you try but it seems you just can never get it right.

[BC_chick]

Sounds like a healthy list to me. At least the Dems aren't afraid of bringing out the last Dem president and the last Dem nominee to their convention.

I guess having Bush or Cheney at the RNC would've been a little counter-productive when bashing Obama for the economy.

[sharkman]

Let's see how friendly the elite media is towards this event vs the Republican one. Funny how they decided to not focus on what Romney said and promised in his speech and instead focused on Eastwood. An obvious ploy if there ever was one.

[waldo]

Let's see how friendly the elite media is towards this event vs the Republican one. Funny how they decided to not focus on what Romney said and promised in his speech and instead focused on Eastwood. An obvious ploy if there ever was one.

I don't know if I've been tapped into your "elite media" or not, but the media I'm reading is talking in depth about what Romney said... rather... what he didn't say. You know, the lack of any semblance of specificity... on anything that might provide even a modicum of detail to the nothingness Romney has presented to date.

how about you step-up and speak to what you heard Romney promise... how he planned to make it happen... and how he was going to pay for it - waiting.....

[msj]

Let's see how friendly the elite media is towards this event vs the Republican one. Funny how they decided to not focus on what Romney said and promised in his speech and instead focused on Eastwood. An obvious ploy if there ever was one.

The Republicans shouldn't have made it so obvious for the media to focus on then.

[sharkman]

Uh, I don't think you got my point. It's about Eastwood and a speech that he made.

Edit, just saw Waldo's thing and thought I'd remind him he's still on ignore.

Edited September 2, 2012 by sharkman

[waldo]

I don't know if I've been tapped into your "elite media" or not, but the media I'm reading is talking in depth about what Romney said... rather... what he didn't say. You know, the lack of any semblance of specificity... on anything that might provide even a modicum of detail to the nothingness Romney has presented to date.

how about you step-up and speak to what you heard Romney promise... how he planned to make it happen... and how he was going to pay for it - waiting.....

Edit, just saw Waldo's thing and thought I'd remind him he's still on ignore.

you, uhhh... 'saw my thing'... while you had/have me on ignore? You should have just really ignored me, rather than allow me to highlight your inability to actually address what you "heard Romney promise" during his wrap-up RNC convention speech.

[msj]

Uh, I don't think you got my point. It's about Eastwood and a speech that he made.

Edit, just saw Waldo's thing and thought I'd remind him he's still on ignore.

I've seen both and I don't know why anyone would expect the media to talk at all about Mitt's speech.

It was, um, well scripted, I guess.

Clint's was a "fist full of awesome" as Jon Stewart would say and deserves to be talked about.

Too bad it makes the RNC look like a crazy fest.

[bud]

i take it shady doesn't cheer for team dems? does he know that both team dems and team repubs have similar sources for election money?

for example:

Goldman Sachs, General Motors, JPMorgan Chase, The Blackstone Group, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Atria, Pfizer, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AT&T, Citigroup, Elliott Management, Comcast, Google, Koch Industries, the Managed Funds Association, Verizon, Visa and Walmart.

oh reality! why must you get in the way of spolitics and team booing and cheering?

Edited September 2, 2012 by bud

[bleeding heart]

Uh oh, looks like things are getting off to a bad start for the Dems...

Do you mean that the rain votes Republican?

Or do you mean this is a sign from the God you don't believe in?

[bleeding heart]

Let's see how friendly the elite media is towards this event vs the Republican one. Funny how they decided to not focus on what Romney said and promised in his speech and instead focused on Eastwood. An obvious ploy if there ever was one.

A ploy!

Only if you contend that Eastwood is a secret Democrat, hired by "the media" (all of it?) to fumble the ball at the Convention.

[bleeding heart]

you, uhhh... 'saw my thing'... while you had/have me on ignore? You should have just really ignored me,

[BubberMiley]

you, uhhh... 'saw my thing'... while you had/have me on ignore?

I think he had the convention on "ignore" too. That's why he can't discuss anything in detail.

[Shady]

Do you mean that the rain votes Republican?

Or do you mean this is a sign from the God you don't believe in?

I'm not religious, so not a sign from God, just a sign.

[Shady]

Sounds like a healthy list to me. At least the Dems aren't afraid of bringing out the last Dem president and the last Dem nominee to their convention.

I guess having Bush or Cheney at the RNC would've been a little counter-productive when bashing Obama for the economy.

Not sure what a "healthy" list means. Unless by healthy you mean completely boring and uninteresting nobody's. Healthy lists to me include tuna, yogurt, oatmeal and almonds.

[Guest American Woman]

I was just reading through a list of the speakers for the DNC convention, and it's God-awful. They have one of the most unimpressive line up of speakers that I've ever seen since being interested in politics and conventions.

Here's what you're suppose to be excited for...

[...]

It's a good thing they have Bill Clinton speaking, because without him, they'd need a snooze alarm! Yikes! Somebody wake me up when it's over, and tell me how it was.

So you're basically saying that the conventions should aim for "entertaining," not "informative?"

[BubberMiley]

Funny how they decided to not focus on what Romney said and promised in his speech and instead focused on Eastwood. An obvious ploy if there ever was one.

You don't think it was because Eastwood was a train wreck and Romney didn't say anything? I'm certain if Romney actually said anything worth talking about, they would have. You're free to do so too, but, of course, you can't.

[Shady]

So you're basically saying that the conventions should aim for "entertaining," not "informative?"

I would say a combination of both. I see no problem in providing brief moments of levity. Especially when everyone compalins of politics being too scripted and controlled.