GoldenDogs

The topic is almost a non-entity. Who cares if the word God is in the platform? Can we legislate god in any way? Can we establish god policies? Unlike abortion and gay marriage, God has a tough time impacting day to day laws and policies. Why there is this never-ending race to prove who is the most religious in America I will never understand. Iran and Saudi Arabia? I expect their government to bow and kneel to religious fervor. We are supposed to be beyond such bullshit.

As for Jerusalem. There I think the democrats got it wrong. If Israel wants Jerusalem as their capital then that is the capital. I don't know why this is even still up for discussion. The people booing were jerks but Jerusalem vs Tel Aviv matters not a bit this election. And republicans need to realize that as they babble on endlessly about Jesus this and Jesus that, Jews don't give a rat's ass about Jesus. I don't care what Jesus would do, what Jesus would think, what Jesus would drive, it is all bullshit. I am more interested in where I can get a good corn beef on rye. It's frightening in 2012 to think about a government worrying about Jesus because that is the first step toward a government asking who doesn't believe in Jesus. And we know how that turned out for the jews in the 20th century. Republicans never will realize that the more they talk about Jesus the more it reminds Jews that they are not from the same tribe, so to speak. Democrats welcome people who worship Jesus, trees, VIshnu, the Force, or nothing at all.

Alright, QFan... good points and I agree with much of what you write here. The only two things I would respond with would be, first, some would use the "V" word - values - and pair them with some sort of religious virtues and claim those said virtues are what those dudes who signed the Constitution had in mind when drafting it, as well as the Bill of Rights, etc.

A debate on that is a waste of time since we really can't define specific values in an ever-changing and diverse America. I would argue that we COULD debate that maybe 100 years ago, maybe as recent as 50 years ago. Our world has changed and I recognize that.

The other issue is that, in terms of the Middle East and foreign policy questions, Israel is extremely important. We have a supposed ally whose very existence is threatened. Where we stand and what we do with all of that speaks volumes to the world. I know that Obama argued that Romney/Ryan had no foreign policy experience... but neither did Obama, which was what Biden was supposed to bring to the table, right? I know that domestic issues are important and should be front and center right now, but the world has really spun out of control the past few years and I honestly don't think Obama has handled foreign affairs very well. No fault of our Secretary of State, who is "the enforcer"... I think Hillary could have worked wonders in the world if not chained to Obama's foreign policy.

Qfan, thanks offering this because your points are on and I've got more to think about now. I know there is more than just left or right viewpoints with all of this... sometimes you all think of things I haven't and I appreciate that!

The point is, the incident wouldn't have been stopped by voter ID and mainly involved politicians. When fraud happens in elections, it's mainly politicians doing it, not random voters.

ID is fine as long as it isn't used to try and hamper certain constituencies from voting.

Thanks Redd... we find common ground and agreement! Though I lean right (if you believe Republicans wish to deny certain people access to the polls), I assure you that MY desire to see some type of ID instituted is based on "getting it right". I wholeheartedly and strongly agree that nobody's right to vote should be hampered or impeded, and I don't think anyone should ever be given a reason to doubt the results of an election.

A Republican Ooops you said right mind...

Just kidding!!!

Okay, I like Wales more and more... LOL!!!

Yes, if you watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. But according to Charles Krauthhammer on FOX Bill Clinton's speech was a failure, so who in their right mind would listen to anything anyone says on FOX?

Come on, ya'll (Marceline, Ann & QFan) are all better than that... three posts in a row that qualify as a DODGE of the question asked/topic raised! I didn't ask about FOX News... the Republican convention was LAST week. I wanted to talk about DEMOCRATS, since their convention is front and center THIS week!

However, though I didn't fully agree with Wales... I sure appreciate the response, offering up some things for me to think about. I'm craving dialogue and discussion...

Thoughts, anyone, on the God and Jersusalem debacle at the DNC yesterday?

An ideological fight on the floor of the convention, suggesting deep divisions within the Democratic party on the acceptance of religion and our ties to Israel, is easily the biggest story of both conventions this election year.

That is election fraud, which is far more common that voter fraud. Voter ID couldn't have stopped that sort of fraud, because it was orchestrated by a campaign. If anything, election fraud is more of a problem. Florida 2000 proves that.

Well, the Assistant US Attorney called it "voter fraud" in her quote. But whatever we wish to call it, I'm sure we can all agree that it is wrong and shouldn't happen. If something is up, it should be investigated, regardless of which party or what individuals are responsible.

But as we refer to the Voter ID issue, I say issue identification to all voters FOR FREE. Then make it a requirement to present that ID to vote (or whatever else a person may need ID for... buying liquor, showing to an officer when caught speeding, picking up your kid at school, getting free government surplus cheese and bread, etc.

Redd, would you agree to Voter ID if we made the ID free?

Besides voter fraud rarely ever happens. It is merely the latest mask that the white right wing conservation establishment is using for vote suppression of segments of the population that do not support their politics.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - A Democratic state legislator from east Arkansas, his father and two campaign workers pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiracy to commit election fraud after federal prosecutors said the lawmaker's campaign bribed absentee voters and destroyed ballots in a special election last year.

Prosecutors said Democratic Rep. Hudson Hallum of Marion, Kent Hallum, Phillip Wayne Carter and Sam Malone acknowledged that they participated in a conspiracy to bribe voters to influence absentee votes in the Arkansas District 54 primary, runoff and general elections in 2011. The four were released pending a sentencing hearing.

"In a nation in which every person's vote matters, protecting the integrity of the electoral process from those who seek to win office by cheating the system is critical," Assistant U.S. Attorney Jane Duke said in a statement released by her office. "Voter fraud schemes such as that carried out in the 2011 District 54 race have the devastating effect of eroding public confidence in elected officials and disenfranchising voters."

But she can't have been good. It must be bias. Just like the only reason Barack Obama got into Harvard was Affirmative Action.

I don't think the point of Vandehei's comments were to make a statement about the merits of the first lady's speech or to even point to a specific bias in the media... I think his point was more how the media, itself, shapes a story with their collective hive-minded commentary - ie: WE think this is good or bad and so then it SHALL be and YOU, the audience, must agree because this is what we have said and you will believe and agree with it because we definitely know what we're talking about.

No matter our source of information, we have all been witness to that offensive arrogance some commentators and pundits put forth... their clear notion that because they say it, it must then be true.

Examining the comments of Brit Hume and Rachel Maddow, however... pleasant words regarding how impressive Mrs. Obama was is a far cry from, "OH MY GOD!!!" I guess we all have to decide in our minds which response is the most appropriate one by allegedly objective "journalists".

So George Clooney couldn't do it for you? One wink and he just might win me over.

Clooney? Ehhhh...

Now, Michael Moore - I could look at him all day!

Where the hell has he been lately, anyway?

Enough fun for this morning... off to work I go to try and earn some dough!

Just flipped through channels and caught video of President Clinton glad-handing a crowd... don't know when this particularly video was shot or if it was in Charlotte, but DAMN the dude looked hammered!! Night of partying... what??

Don't get me wrong, not knockin' the guy... I actually miss him and how he made everyone feel. Wait, did I just say that??? LOL... Seriously, I do. I didn't appreciate what he offered then but certainly do now in retrospect.

But, geez... the video I saw... what the hell?? Hillary has been looking a little ragged lately, too. I think these people are stressed or something... I can't wait until the election is over, and I bet they feel the same way! I'm already really tired of statistics on white greaseboards, talking heads, loud-mouthed pundits, and campaign shenanigans.

But this cycle, I'm so far enjoying the conversations here at SON, even with those who don't always agree with me. Except for Max, everyone here is genuine in their beliefs and it shows.

I'm teasing you, Max... don't get your tidy whities in a twist... :-)

So...so far Mitt Romney has the support of Ted Nugent, Nicki Minaj, Mr. Walker Texas Anger and sundowing Clint Eastwood.

I admit I have no interest in which celebrities are supporting whom, nor do I care what celebrities think as they may be even more disconnected from the real world and all of us than the politicians we write about!

However, the support of actor Kal Penn is definitely enough to sway me in Obama's direction...

There is news to be had, just not on FOX, CNN or MSNBC unless we are talking natural disasters or something. Politico.com has interesting articles, fivethirtyeight offers sharp analysis and predictions on the election from poll wonk Nate Silver. Silver has a track record second to none and he feels Obama is something like a 70-30 chance to win.

Speaking of Politico, Jim VandeHei from Politico appeared on C-SPAN and offered the following regarding the coverage of Michelle Obama's speech:

"The mainstream media tends to be quite smitten with the Obamas so I don’t know if we should over interpret it but there’s no doubt that’s sort of how all the taste makers in media as we talk what it does have a way shaping certainly the coverage in the morning. So I think you can anticipate that tomorrow is going to be quite glowing.”

And to underscore his points, Politico posted a laundry list of comments from our beloved mainstream media critiquing the first lady's speech - including comments by FOX News commentators:

CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "The First Lady not hitting a home run, but probably a Grand Slam."

NBC's Chuck Todd: "Michelle Obama owned this convention in a way that no speaker owned the convention in Tampa."

CNN analyst David Gergen: "If they have two more nights like this, they can probably break this race open."

Fox News's Martha McCallum: "Very positive response here from the floor, and very enthusiastic from people listening to this."

Fox News' Brit Hume: "Extremely impressive woman."

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: "Oh my god."

MSNBC's Ed Schultz: "Tonight we were reintroduced to a star."

CNN analyst Donna Brazille: "Love is in the air."

I think the real reason why the media hates this campaign is because it is not the same cakewalk for Obummer that 2008 was. Their excuse that they hate this campaign because it isn't exciting is hard to believe, since 1980 was a very exciting campaign, yet they hated it cause Reagan was elected. And I don't recall hoards of media reporters lamenting back in 1996 about what a boring campaign that was, since they seemed perfectly content with a Democratic president easily winning re-election.

Max, I don't believe the media was the partisan beast you claim them to be back in 1980. I certainly don't think there was a "liberal" media then that intensely disliked Reagan, or hated that he got elected. The man had charisma and could work a crowd... the media then loved that aspect of Reagan. The media simply enjoys covering charismatic personalities. Clinton was dynamic in that one... Obama is a fantastic orator (teleprompter issues aside).

Neither Bush proved to be a dynamic speaker. Carter was as dull as a rusty razor.

I don't believe a biased hard news media (or so-called hard news media) got any real traction until the late 90's to 2000. Talk radio aside, I think the proliferation of choices presented by satellite and cable unleashed the media none of us care much for.

Hard news is dead... Infotainment rules the day now. Pundits are everywhere. Liberals watch MSNBC or listen to NPR, Conservatives watch FOX News or listen to Limbaugh or Beck. Moderates watch everything and are probably better informed than all of us!

And Max thinks another four years of Obama will doom us all.

Carl, the media sucks. They are lazy and inefficient. It's not a good campaign unless a candidate is plauged by infidelity, had sex with goats, etc.

Sounds to me like the media can't nail any serious dirt on Obama or Romney, so it's dull for them. And the candidates are PROTECTING themselves from the crap-shoveling media, not allowing them to sink their nasty fangs into anything. Maybe instead of attempting to incite a pissing contest between the candidates and their respective parties, the media should attempt to incite discussions and debate on real policy issues we voters care about.

Anyone see the media actually establishing a sensible dialogue about the issues? I sure haven't... Maybe if our news organizations handled coverage more befitting a serious political campaign than a simple-minded Access Hollywood piece, the candidates would allow more access and we could be a better informed voting populace.

This has got to be one of the funniest things I've ever read in this thread. I didn't know the destruction of anything made of sand could be an omen. So now I understand when sand castles fall apart that it's an ominous sign. And I guess when ice sculptures melt at wedding receptions that it must be a sign that the marriage is built on sinking sand.

Did the sculpture loom over the convention hall and cover the floor in sand or something?

Just askin'...

Okay, the visual is killing me here!!

Just laughin'...

CHARLOTTE, N.C. - A torrential downpour that struck Charlotte Saturday afternoon damanged the Mount Rushmore-style sand sculpture bust of President Obama - an ominous beginning to what many fear is a plagued convention.

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.

Boy, if this doesn't summarize the Obama presidency, I don't know what does...

A beautiful work of art crumbling and decaying by the harsh elements... with a last ditch attempt to fix what went wrong. Hmm.

Just sayin'...

But yet... according to the Republican party, the United States being anything remotely like your country would be the end of life as we know it. We are told that you are a socialist state, and every person is made to live like paupers.... and if we were to become anything like you, we'd all start bleeding from the eyes and drop dead or something. They say there are NO rich people in Sweden, There are even no middle class... they say Sweden is a country full of peasants, with a few rich elite running the government. They also say that Swedish parents take 10 year old children into hard core sex shops all the time. I've heard ALL of that from talk radio pundits.

As a registered Republican, Alpha, I can't recall ever having said anything like that about Sweden. I also don't recall ever hearing Republican party members say any of those things about Sweden, either.

Now, I may have said from time to time that Liberalism is but a few steps away from socialism... I believe that to be absolutely true.

You don't need to have photo ID to vote in the U.S?

That is definitely a requirement if you want to vote here! I just assumed that was the case everywhere. Or at the very least that you would have to produce some sort of identification.

We Americans are a silly bunch, Swede!

Eh, it does not matter what statistics or any other credible evidence shows, for these people widespread voter fraud is a boogie man born from political delusion and a determination to suppress the votes which ever way they can.

Well, Ann, it does matter. That there would be even ONE vote improperly or illegally cast, thereby cancelling out the right of another to have their voice heard is an outrage and is unacceptable.

With regard to voter suppression, we could argue that back and forth until doomsday; I could offer that Democrats routinely attempt to suppress the votes of service men and women around the world... I won't argue these points until doomsday but will simply hold the position that voter fraud of any kind should not be tolerated and those who so causally dismiss it clearly have another agenda.

Okay... here's the deal. In order for my son to take the driving test today, we needed to provide them with my vehicle's registration and proof of insurance... AND he needed to give them a photo ID (which consisted of last year's high school ID, as I had mentioned earlier today). After I had posted here earlier about the whole ID for voting thing, I sort of smiled. The lady at the counter probably thought I was nuts, smiling like that in a DMV office. Most people don't, you know... LOL...

Anyway, here in California, you can actually register to vote at the DMV, where they are asking people for photo ID's!! Though, of course, they are not asking them for voter registration purposes. Still, it renders the whole argument pointless...

Without a photo ID, how do you function at all? If it is a burden to present some form of identification to vote, isn't it then a burden to present some form of identification to claim an unemployment or welfare check, to apply for a job, etc.?

Ann, with all due respect, to claim that voter fraud rarely happens is a bit out there. We all have seen stories in which the dead are voting (I suspect zombies are too easily distracted to actually vote, however)... It happens all the time. Some believe voter fraud is the reason Al Franken holds a Senate seat.

We demand identification for all sorts of things in society... why NOT to cast a vote for one of the most powerful leaders in the world? I think it's a small thing to ask. The DMV here records your thumb print and idenfifies people that way... maybe that technology should be used for voting purposes, too. Would you support that, Ann? We SHOULD make it easier for all those people who just can't seem to verify their identities in this country... That would eliminate the barrier to acquire those documents, right?

A federal court has ruled against a Texas law that would require voters to present photo IDs to election officials before being allowed to cast ballots in November.

The three-judge panels says that presenting a photo ID to vote imposed "strict, unforgiving burdens on the poor" and noted that racial minorities in Texas are more likely to live in poverty.

Now, I'm struggling with this one and would like someone here who sides with the three-judge panel's decision to explain to me how showing a photo ID is a burden. I realize some of these people may not have a driver license... but neither does my son, who just graduated and is 18, but he carries with him a school ID that has his picture on it. (Hopefully he'll get his actual driver license today - he's taking the test! Please send me good thoughts that my car doesn't get smashed!!)

How do people without a photo ID get jobs or, if unemployed, draw benefits... etc. Help me with this... how does a person NOT get a photo ID - ANY sort of ID? I think the fee for a Driver License in California is only $30... I know, I know... that is eggs, cheese, and milk for a poor family. But still... anybody here NOT have ANY photo ID or proof of existence?

I can be swayed to the left on this one if someone has good some good ideas on this...

Thanks!

So, with all the outrage over Melissa Reeves' support of Chick-fil-A and that corporation's alleged support of murdering gays and lesbians, how do you all feel about Samual L. Jackson's twitter comments wondering why Republican's were spared by the wrath of Isaac... and Ellen Barkin's hopes that the hurricane kills "every pro-life, xenophobic, gay-bashing SOB" at the RNC?

Do you think the response to Jackson's and Barkin's comments will spark the same outrage, at least here at SON, that Reeves' comments did?

RME. He said what he meant and meant what he said. If you agree with him fine, but don't lash out at me and others who understand exactly what he is saying or try to change his "intent."

I don't recall lashing out at anyone and I'm not interested in a debate over his intent. If you wish to characterize him in a certain way, go for it. I wholeheartedly support your right to do so and I'm sure you wholeheartedly support my desire to disagree with you.

Ann, my days of arguing in forums are done. Conversation is always good... sharing of ideas is wonderful... respectful debate is fantastic. It's interesting to see varying viewpoint... take it all in and ponder it for a while. While I may disagree, I certainly respect what others offer. Alpha and I clearly disagree on a great many things politically but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because everything I have ever seen him post here suggests that he is a good person with a good heart.

Tolerance is about not judging. Yes, there are those who lean right that embrace that philosophy... ;-)

Boy... Akin just stepped in every pile of poop he can find. This guy is such an ass. From a personal standpoint, if I were a woman who was raped, and got pregnant... I would never have an abortion (I would have done morning after pill), because I personally don't believe in it, and I can compartmentalize, in my mind, a new life being brought into the world would be the ONLY good thing that could come from that bad situation. So I wouldn't get rid of it, when it's the only good thing. It's not the baby's fault after all, the circumstances regarding conception. But I know lots of women just want to get rid of it, because they feel it would be some kind of permanent reminder or something. Some women just don't have the strength and fortitude to look at it logically instead of emotionally and not kill the baby because someone ELSE was a vicious monster. So therefore... I would never legislate something like that.... prohibiting the abortion or anything.

Hey Alpha, I've resisted the urge to post in this forum the past couple of weeks but feel compelled to here. Because I lean to the right -- and there isn't much in the way of diverse political viewpoints here -- I decided to offer up something in response to your post.

I actually had to read it three times to get into what you were saying. I see where you are going with this... I don't believe your intent was to denigrate women, nor do I believe your intent was to insult a woman who wishes to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape. Those that immediately accuse you of such positions based on your statement are reactionary and clearly don't need much material to frame your words in a negative light. I don't recall ever seeing a series of posts here that suggest you are anti-woman or whatever, so it is a rush to judgement to categorize you as such.

I would add that I feel your post is poorly worded... no offense. There are many points you are making and the overall message comes out muddled and mixed to me. But I don't think your intent was as some are indicating...

Hey guys... what have I missed? <<he innocently asked, eyes grower wider while glancing wildly about the uncomfortably quiet room>>