DNC here I COME!!

[MrMacMan]

Hello guys, just wanted to inform you my parents are delegates so I get to go to Boston with them. haha, I'll check if I can get pictures and stuff, well see yah all later!


Parrrtttaaayy!!

--MrMacMan

[zimv20]

cool! that sounds like a lot of fun.

[MrMacMan]

Thank you very much, I will post many pictures when I get back.

Oh it will be fun. :D

I'm about to go to the DNC the actual convention center, I didn't expect to get in, you need special passes. Its very very cool.

:D

Oooo this is soo fun.

I've meet senators and many other people, its just fantastic.

--MrMacMan

[themadchemist]

lucky bastard! have fun :D

[themadchemist]

Bill Clinton is ridiculously amazing. I'm speechless.

[IJ Reilly]

I thought that was the finest speech Clinton has ever given, and probably better by half than anything we'll get from the candidates on either side.

And what did David Brooks at PBS have to say about it. I quote, "It was a so-so speech." Even Mark Shields, the ostensible Democrat on the PBS pundit team, damned it with qualified praise.

Honestly, these people spend way too much time inside the Beltway. They can't even tell the difference between a good political speech and a mediocre one anymore.

[3rdpath]

i agree, bill clinton's speech was absolutely amazing. i was impressed by carter's speech as well...he was very low key but his points were impressively sharp.

i had to flip to cspan to watch the speeches because of the mindless/pointless punditry on cnn. it was like wolf blitzer had some bizarre case of oral flatulence...

[themadchemist]

All of tonight's speeches were good. Clinton's was historic. It will likely be the finest speech of the entire campaign, although Edwards might come close. The reason Edwards can't really meet it yet is because he doesn't have the stature of Clinton. Not only were the words brilliant, but it was Bill Clinton saying them, which means a lot.

Clinton smacked of Mark Antony tonight. His backhanded compliments for the Bush administration were reminiscient of Mark Antony's "Brutus is an honorable man" speech. He twisted the knife ever so gently, and with a smile ever so sweet.

Gore was also a surprise. He's got fire in his belly and he's a much better speaker now than he ever was as VP. I wish he'd have been as passionate in 2000 as he was tonight. If he'd spoken with similar force and style, I think he could have won.

[blackfox]

All of tonight's speeches were good. Clinton's was historic. It will likely be the finest speech of the entire campaign, although Edwards might come close. The reason Edwards can't really meet it yet is because he doesn't have the stature of Clinton. Not only were the words brilliant, but it was Bill Clinton saying them, which means a lot.

Clinton smacked of Mark Antony tonight. His backhanded compliments for the Bush administration were reminiscient of Mark Antony's "Brutus is an honorable man" speech. He twisted the knife ever so gently, and with a smile ever so sweet.

Gore was also a surprise. He's got fire in his belly and he's a much better speaker now than he ever was as VP. I wish he'd have been as passionate in 2000 as he was tonight. If he'd spoken with similar force and style, I think he could have won.

Yes. Yes. Probably. Probably. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. He Did.

[themadchemist]

He Did.

Correction, he could have won by a large enough of margin not to have gotten screwed by the supreme court.

[Durandal7]

I missed Gore, was he in the first hour of coverage on PBS? I wasn't able to start watching until around when Carter came on. I was under the impression he was going to be in the same hour as the Clintons.

[Waluigi]

I was blown away by Clinton's speech. It was so soothing after Hillary's speech that sounded like a run-on cheer at a football game. Carter was also fantastic, especially on his post-speech interview on PBS. Gore too did a lot of good. Jon Stewart was also on MSNBC after the Clinton Speech, and was fantastic.

Favorite Lines tonight:
"We cannot lead if our leaders mislead"--Carter

"Let's make sure not only that the Supreme Court does not pick the next president, but also that this president is not the one who picks the next Supreme Court"--Gore

"Strength and wisdom are not opposing values. They go hand in hand"--Clinton

--Waluigi

[jelloshotsrule]

i guess i'm just cynical, but i got sick of listening to clinton

i see the whole convention as a kerry lovefest, based on what? polls show that most people don't even know what he stands for. i'm not one to call him a flip flopper (i personally believe it's a *good* thing to grow and become wiser and thus change beliefs at times)... but at the same time, it's unclear where he stands on some things. or, i know where he stands, and it doesn't impress me.

so, while clinton is surely a good speaker (look at all the smart people here who creamed their pants over his speech. hah), i see it all as just rhetoric that is washed away in my mind by the atrocities that clinton committed (as has most every us president).. not comparable to bush, but not as sparkling clean as his teeth....

[IJ Reilly]

Clinton was up there to illustrate some of the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats, not to set out an agenda for John Kerry. That's Kerry's job, and we'll see Thursday how well he accomplishes the task. Maybe you expect something else from a speech, but I thought Clinton made his political pitch masterfully.

[jelloshotsrule]

Clinton was up there to illustrate some of the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats, not to set out an agenda for John Kerry. That's Kerry's job, and we'll see Thursday how well he accomplishes the task. Maybe you expect something else from a speech, but I thought Clinton made his political pitch masterfully.

ok, i realize this.

my points are along these lines

1. i can't get excited about a party, especially when history shows that it often doesn't back up what it claims

2. i can't get excited about what i know about kerry's policies, so someone praising him does nothing for me

see what i'm saying?

[mischief]

ok, i realize this.

my points are along these lines

1. i can't get excited about a party, especially when history shows that it often doesn't back up what it claims

2. i can't get excited about what i know about kerry's policies, so someone praising him does nothing for me

see what i'm saying?


To use Clinton's examples: John Adams, who arguably gave us the Bill of Rights and the Seperation of Powers. John Kennedy, who arguably brought those same Articles into the modern age.

[IJ Reilly]

Sure. I'm not a party member, so I don't get too excited by any political speech from that standpoint. But I think no matter how cynical you or I might have become, that we'd have to admit that real differences do exist between the parties. It was Clinton's task to illustrate these differences in broad strokes, which I think he accomplished with remarkable clarity and style.

[Lyle]

Clinton was up there to illustrate some of the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats, not to set out an agenda for John Kerry. That's Kerry's job, and we'll see Thursday how well he accomplishes the task. Maybe you expect something else from a speech, but I thought Clinton made his political pitch masterfully.Yes, putting my political differences aside, I must admit that it was a fantastic speech. And contrary to a lot of predictions, Clinton didn't use his time to try to bring glory to himself, but instead gave his thoughts on the differences between the parties.

[jelloshotsrule]

Sure. I'm not a party member, so I don't get too excited by any political speech from that standpoint. But I think no matter how cynical you or I might have become, that we'd have to admit that real differences do exist between the parties. It was Clinton's task to illustrate these differences in broad strokes, which I think he accomplished with remarkable clarity and style.

yeah, i guess he succeeded at that..

my thinking is that the republican party is horrible (in general... there are some reps that are ok). and the democratic party is very bad. (again, a few i like)... so differences between poop and piss don't really do it for me. hah

was that off color?


mischief - lincoln was a republican, no?

so?????

what happened x years ago means little now

[mischief]

mischief - lincoln was a republican, no?

so?????

what happened x years ago means little now

Lincoln enacted a program that is remembered as an equal rights provision. However, the backing for Emancipation was rich, white, non-slave-owning northerners who owned industrial businesses.

Had Emancipation not been an issue the results would have been dramatic: There would have been no Civil War. The South would have Industrialized with slave labor and could have quite easily out competed their northern competitors who used (poorly) paid labor.

It's important to remember that Emancipation caused the most dammaging war in US history, did permanent dammage to the South's economy and psyche, did almost nothing for the "freed" slaves beyond (granted this is HUGE by itself) no longer being property and served (in many respects) to de-regulate "free market" (read: wage) slavery.

Between Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Movement a century later African Americans were nearly as screwed as they were to begin with along with any recently immigrated ethnic group.

In many respects the original Emancipation legislation just served to create a huge indentured labor pool that could span more than just the former slave lines.

The Republicans of the north got exactly what they wanted: A HUGE influx of dirt cheap labor that was willing to work for far less than their existing workers that were, by definition no longer working for their Southern competitors.

[jelloshotsrule]

hmm. ok

so in other words, we can find ways to pretend that because joe blow was a democrat 100 years ago, and was great, all democrats are great now! whooooo!

[mischief]

... in other words, we can find ways to pretend that because joe blow was a democrat 100 years ago, and was great, all democrats are great now!

To quote Monty Python: "Universal Affirmatives can only be partially converted."

To whit: If you recall test taking strategy you may remember that any statement in true/false mode in which the word "all" appears is usually automatically False.

I was making the point that your statement regarding History's irrelevance is quite brazenly false and that, generally speaking, when comparing the Democrats and Republicans (Party formerly known as Anti-Democrats) the distinctions in policy and attitude go ALL THE WAY BACK.

Benjamin Franklyn was arguably the first Republican and supported a Monarchy and a Caste system. After it became clear that a Democracy was to be the format of choice he argued to have Voting restricted to a wealthy elite.

John Adams was arguably the first Democrat and countered his friend's efforts with Populist ideology through the entire formation of the Union.

History can teach you a lot if you bother to check it.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't know quite how we got off onto historical points, but just for the record, the Emancipation Proclamation was signed on January 1, 1863, which was during the Civil War and so not the cause of it. The North was in serious danger of losing the war at that point, so Lincoln pushed for the emancipation of the slaves as a device to give the North some clear cause for their fight, beyond the preservation of the United States as a union. The effects of the reconstruction era are an entire different matter.

[mischief]

As I recall the issue of slavery (and in particular ending the legality of the practice) was the cause for the war. Emancipation in the form it finally took was, indeed an eleventh hour attempt to salvage the war but the money behind the pre existing movement's (for the ending of Slavery) success in the flowed from industrialists in the North. Am I missing something?

[blackfox]

Jello, I wonder if your dislike of the current system (and it's two parties) is overshadowing the very real differences between the Rep. and the Dem. and the effect this difference will have. I also wonder if you are paying sufficient attention to the character of the individual, separate from party and system affiliation.

While you vocally support Nader, is he as an individual, that much better than Kerry if yo look beyond the latter's involvement with the US political system? Before Kerry entered the Senate, he did quite a bit with regards to Veterans, and more as a Prosecutor, which was not necessarily beholden to Party politics. Edwards, as a trial lawyer also made a difference in people's lives. Nader, as a consumer advocate, did accomplish much and I admire him for that...but what makes them so different, other than the fact that the Former duo is playing the "game"?

If it is the system that irks you, with the concentration of money, the existance of established parties and Fundraising Networks (and Conventions)...why blame the individual members of this system.

Just because Nader is on the outside of all this, running as an independent, does not make him a better candidate, nor does the fact that he takes positions that are unpopular to candidates from the established parties for reasons of pragmatism (ie voters are not ready, the nature of the system).

To quote (badly) from the movie "The Matrix":

" although these are the people we are trying to save, until we do so, they are potentially our enemy. Many people are so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight with their very lives to save it..."

The point being, is that as noble as your push for an Independent Candidate and the positions he brings to the table, the public, nor the Political system is ready for such a dramatic change. Many will fight tooth-and-nail against such a development, if they even care to give it credence in the first place. It is too much a step into the unknown for many within or out of government to handle, regardless of merit.

As I have advocated before, if you are commited to the introduction of third-party candidates into the system and the subsequent reform implied in such a change, you must be willing to work incrementally and to have patience. Starting with a President is too much, too quickly and will never take.

What will work is the advancement of Independent Candidates at the local and State level to begin with, where the influence of money is less, and the attention on the candidates is more focused. Concentrate on Governorships, Mayoral Candidates, State Congressmen. Then work on Federal Representatives and Congressmen. Once these candidates are given a chance to prove themselves at each level, they and the possibilities they represent (ie Third-parties) will be given respect and legitimacy by both the voters and the Political System. They will also be given money and support to run in the bigger contests. It is only after this actual and perceptual framework/infrastructure is built, that a third-party Presidential Candidate will have a real chance.

I know it is frustrating to have to deal with a system you do not like or respect, but ideology and hope are not enough. I feel you must be patient and work incrementally to reach your goals, as great is it might feel to work in broad and bold moves. While you may find some kind of moral victory in Nader receiving 5% of the Presidential vote, and some kind of further galvanization of your position on the unfairness/imperfectness of the system by this result, you have acheived relatively little in terms of advancing your goals with regards to the American Public.

Just my opinion, jello...I do not hope you take this personally, I just find this type of idealism at the expense of pragmatism foolish. This has nothing to do with the merits or Nader or his policies, I find the latter especially decent, it has to do with the manner in which you approach the problem...

[Thomas Veil]

Well, back on-topic...

I missed the coverage last night (dammit!) because I work evenings. And I couldn't tape it because my daughter just had to record something on MTV (blecch!). So, is there anywhere where I can see the speeches or read their text?

From the little news coverage I saw this morning, Gore was wonderful. Had he been that loose, that enthusiastic, that convincing four years ago, he'd be our president now.

And I thought that tribute to the victims of 9/11 was a perfect touch.

[blackfox]

Thomas, go to Cspan...they will have you covered...

[mischief]

[QUOTE=Thomas Veil]Well, back on-topic...

So, is there anywhere where I can see the speeches or read their text?

[QUOTE]

Yep. You can listen to either Clinton's speech by itself (Excellent piece of Oratory) or one hour segments.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3621016

[Thomas Veil]

Thanks. I just thought to check C-Span's web site, too. Right now I'm listening to him being introduced to "Don't Stop". Brings a smile to my face. :D

[Thomas Veil]

I do wish these people would discover QuickTime, though. :rolleyes:

[IJ Reilly]

As I recall the issue of slavery (and in particular ending the legality of the practice) was the cause for the war. Emancipation in the form it finally took was, indeed an eleventh hour attempt to salvage the war but the money behind the pre existing movement's (for the ending of Slavery) success in the flowed from industrialists in the North. Am I missing something?

Quite a bit I think, though this probably isn't the thread to discuss it. In short, in the minds of Americans at that time there was quite a big difference between abolition and emancipation. Lincoln was in favor of the former and against the latter (until late 1862, at least). Like a lot of Northerners he believed that slavery should be disdained as a practice and restricted to the places where it already existed, but remain legal, even protected by law. The real split in the nation occurred over the issue of whether slavery would be permitted in the new states then joining the union, and over whether deciding if a new state would be slave or free should be a state or a federal question. The war started when the southern states withdrew from the union primarily over this issue, and not because Lincoln had pledged to free the slaves. Had it not been for the war, and the war going badly besides, he probably wouldn't have done it.

The abolition movement of the 1850s was largely led by religious figures, of which I suppose John Brown was the most famous. I don't believe they were viewed as being in the mainstream of American thought.

[MrMacMan]

I'mmm bbaaccckkk

And I have Pictures!

Offical Pictures.


You wish CNN covered a *real* delegates story, but they didn't, I'll show pictures of the parties, a tour of Boston, heck maybe you will learn something about todays political process.


I thought the best speakers were Barack Obama (here (http://mfile.akamai.com/12294/mov/dncc.download.akamai.com/12294/07272004/barack_obama_300.mov) ), Clinton(here (http://mfile.akamai.com/12294/mov/dncc.download.akamai.com/12294/07262004/bill_clinton_300.mov) ),and Gore's (was at his best, like 3x better then in 2000 campaign), Sharpton was great (highly criticized on TV for *no reason* MSNBC was so pissed, they stopped mid way to so Chris Mathews could criticize him). I also have to mention that out of the videos I have posted today Only Sharpton's is 'Temporarily out of order' :rolleyes:

I also thought Ron Reagan made a moving case for stem cell research, explaining what it is and what it is now. (Not Abortion, not killing any living thing) This video is here: video (http://mfile.akamai.com/12294/mov/dncc.download.akamai.com/12294/07272004/ron_reagan_300.mov)



Again I have many pictures (some personal ones will be taken out), so prepare for a behinds the scenes looks hehe. :p

[Bobcat37]

I also thought Ron Reagan made a moving case for stem cell research, explaining what it is and what it is now. (Not Abortion, not killing any living thing) This video is here: video (http://mfile.akamai.com/12294/mov/dncc.download.akamai.com/12294/07272004/ron_reagan_300.mov)

*sigh*

You've been badly deceived my friend... badly.

I'd get into it here, but if you're curious, it probably deserves it's own topic.

[pseudobrit]

*sigh*

You've been badly deceived my friend... badly.

I'd get into it here, but if you're curious, it probably deserves it's own topic.

Start a new thread about it if you think you can convince anyone here that leftover embryos from fertility treatments that would be discarded are really human beings who are better served by being discarded than curing a myriad of diseases.

[zimv20]

it probably deserves it's own topic.
please

[Thomas Veil]

Mr. Macman, wherever did you find Clinton's speech in QuickTime (even if the sound is out of sync)? All I've been able to find is that "Real" stuff. Are any of the other speeches available in QT?

[MrMacMan]

Mr. Macman, wherever did you find Clinton's speech in QuickTime (even if the sound is out of sync)? All I've been able to find is that "Real" stuff. Are any of the other speeches available in QT?
Yes, yes in fact all of the speaches are in QT (crappy Qual. even at the highest they have but its still better then Real :ech:)
All of the DNC videos are located:
here (http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=125919)

And Bobcat37 -- Discarded Fertilized embryo's are not human. The only places they go under the Bush Administation are:
In the Frezer -- Forever.
In the trash can.


They could go to saving lives, I'm not for Stem Cell research because I'm a 'left wing, pinko-communist limousines liberal' either.


Its because my God-Father have Parkinsons and anything that can save him, or people like him would be absolutly fantastic.

He was a great guy before, and now he is limp, weak, trembles sometimes and has had seizures. Anything that can help him, anything.

[zimv20]

mrmacman, i'm sorry about your godfather

[MrMacMan]

mrmacman, i'm sorry about your godfather
Thank you very very much.

I'm just really pissed that people with legitimate dieases that could be curable are totally being ingored by this adminstration.



And I am really sorry I can't get the photos to you people on time... damn.

:(

[zimv20]

I'm just really pissed that people with legitimate dieases that could be curable are totally being ingored by this adminstration.

"The Republican Party: We'll fight for your right to be born. After that, you're on your own."

[themadchemist]

"The Republican Party: We'll fight for your right to be born. After that, you're on your own."

that's brilliant.

Mr MacMan: I'm very sorry to hear about your godfather; I hope that our myopic government will open its eyes to the future of medicine. Potential still exists in that well-endowed institutions like Harvard are dipping into private funding to conduct full-blown stem cell research...It's a very difficult endeavor because the bulk of funding comes from the government, but it will tide us over until the government comes to its senses.

[IJ Reilly]

"The Republican Party: We'll fight for your right to be born. After that, you're on your own."

Life begins at conception, and ends at birth.

[skunk]

Life begins at conception, and ends at birth.
There's a song in there somewhere... ;)