ReddFoxx

Looks like someone may have gotten a hold of Romney's tax returns.

http://mashable.com/2012/09/05/hacker-ransom-romney-tax-returns/

I'm surprised Clint Eastwood qualified to speak at the Convention, seeing as how he's had 7 children by 5 different women, and only married 2 of them.

Not just that, he's also pro-choice and pro-environment, his record as Mayor of Carmel was really very strong on environmental issues.

Statistics don't support Republicans claims of voter fraud, they seem to think they only lose elections because minorities voted more than once and it's simply not true. Voter ID isn't about stopping fraud, it's about manipulating elections and it's time to be honest about that. You think this is going to be enforced in Republicans areas? Not at all, because it's not about the law. Where are all these stories about widespread voter fraud? They don't exist. http://votingrights....election-fraud/

A lot of these efforts don't even include discounted IDs for those who can't afford them. That says a lot about the intention right there. It's all politics.

Adlai Stevenson is the most notable person to lose the general and run again. Harold Stassen holds the record for running for President every election between 1944 and 1996, although he never got for in the primaries. http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=8199

Ron Paul supporters are not happy, they made somewhat of a scene on the convention floor. They had cothes pins on their noses and were chanting.

The Jeffersons

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FHDwRECFL8M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What's Happenin' Now

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/x1jQc9YAH1Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The Women of Brewster Place

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xNt6cyG770k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In The Heat of the Night

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hEfQYVfshs8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Knots Landing (Season 9)

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/iPXn-QNxUKM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

If Akin had been somewhere like Oklahoma, which is safely Republican, they wouldn't have asked him to drop out. They only reason they want him out is because McCaskill can defeat him, as Missouri does have some suburban voters that would drop Akin very easily. He was hands down the weakest candidate they could have put up. McCaskill spent money on ads calling him too conservatives, so that the ultra-conservatives would go and out vote for him in the primary. She wanted to run against him.

Does it mean he was racist if he chose to launch his campaign on "states rights" in a place where civil rights workers had been murdered?

http://en.wikipedia....ights%22_speech

That was very deliberate. Lee Atwater was behind a lot of the Southern Strategy and he admitted that Republicans came up with different words to say "N*****, N*****, N*****," in order to play to southerners with racist attitudes.

And yet, partisan Democrats are having us believe that Biden's "gaffe" has nothing at all to do with race even though Danville, VA has a very ugly racial past. According to Wikipedia:

Also, I don't recall one Democrat saying a peep in 2008 about Biden being on the ticket despite the fact that he once said (regarding Obama): "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man." When he said that Obama was "clean," did he mean to suggest that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton don't bathe? Additional words of racial "wisdom" coming from Biden include a 2006 statement that "In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

There should have been widespread condemnation of that remark, but a freshman member of the House has a lot less power in his party than the VP has.

What does it matter who has more power? That's trying to apply a double standard.

Biden's remarks were about unchaining banks and wall street, unless you consider criticism of banks racist, then there was nothing racist or race baiting about what he said. Republicans would rather change the subject and talk about race, than banks.

No Republicans said a word when Allen West (Bachmann on steroids) said that Obama wanted to be put people into slavery and called Social Security slavery.

ROFL.

I don't care if 400 people march into this thread and mistakenly think my post was racist, it still doesn't make it so. Acknowledging race and admitting it is there doesn't make one a racist any more than if I said Geraldine Ferraro became the VP nominee for Walter Mondale not because of her merits, but because she was a woman. Now you can come and say I am sexist too if you like, but it won't make it so. Sarah Palin was picked because she was a woman, Hillary Clinton became senator because she was Bill's wife and had she not been so she never would have even been even a potential nominee. GWB became governor of Texas because he was George Bush's son. Now why don't you say I am anti-sons next?

I don't care if many people have this notion or that notion, I only care about whether I am racist or whether the fine people at son.com want to read my post and redefine what racism is so they label me with that word.

Why was it even necessary to bring race into the equation? It's a racist assertion that Obama elected because he's black and it's a very faulty one too, since most of the votes he got had nothing to do with race. Again, why was race even brought up?

There is nothing racist about my post. Of course it was his skin color that got him elected. What were the other reasons, he gave a good speech? So does Sarah Palin.

Sorry, it is racist, it pushes the notion that many people have about people of color in high positions, the one that asserts that they didn't get there on merit, but only on race. He ran a better campaign in 2008, I was a Hillary supporter, but I have to say he ran a better campaign in the primary as well. And in the general, his opposition was weak and he ran circles around it. That's why he won, he worked for it.

And I don't recall Sarah Palin ever giving a good speech.

The problem with what Booker said is that there is nothing "nauseating" about the Bain Capital ads, there were no lies or distortions in them and Romney uses his business experiences as a reason why he should be elected, that is fair game.

And a lot of people have a problem with it, because no elected Republicans have really stepped out to condemn attacks on the President that are based on personal character, yet Booker offers a defense for Romney on something that can't be defended.

Republicans stepped up the partisanship the minute Obama was elected. Why aren't they expected to stop partisanship?

Yes, the state polls are where the picture of the race is at. National polls tend be less stable than the state ones and really count less since electoral votes decided the election.

Romney's changes have been more dramatic, he's a completely different person than he was ten years ago, which is a lot different than Obama upgrading his position on one issue.

Romney's favorables are horrible, double digits under water, that's all I need to say about what the potential outcome of the election will be.

Lugar losing means Democrats go from no chance at winning the seat to at least a possibility of winning it. It's a lot easier for Donnelly to win moderates against Mourdock.

Lieberman was too into the war and Specter was party switcher, that's completely different than just purging the party of every moderate for a whole line of ideological issues.

Rosen never even mentioned anything about mothers, it's was Ann Romney that added that. It isn't a lie that she never worked for a living, as in having to earn a paycheck and for that matter, her husband has never really had to survival, but rather for status. Rosen would have even said what she said if Mitt Romney hadn't labeled Ann one of his economic surrogates. With the primary over, Romney needs something to delay discussing the issues.

To clarify why I mentioned Geraldo anglicizing his name in the past, a lot of minorities believe what kind of name you have or how you dress makes some difference of status in society, when that simply is not the case. I do believe that this situation would have occured even if Trayvon wasn't wearing a hoodie, a lot of folks see any minority, regardless of attire, as being trouble in certain neighborhoods.

I'm sorry, but I have to be very real here and say that the notion that a hoodie is responsible for Trayvon Martin's death is just plain stupid, ignorant and racist. If that offends, I'm sorry, but I don't hold back words. Racist attitudes don't depend on attire. I was called the "N-word" simply walking from the store just a couple of weeks ago and I didn't have a hoodie on.

George Zimmerman had a record, he resisted arrest and assaulted a police officer, he was obviously unstable. He was told by emergency not to exit his vehicle, but he did so anyway. He is not the victim here, he is still alive and well, with a chance at retaining freedom. Shame on anyone who blames a teenager for being shot by an adult who stalked him while he was minding his own business.

As for Geraldo, he's got issues with race himself. He anglicized his name in the past, so of course he would take an ignorant attitude. But, ignorance is indeed bliss for a lot of people.

Cliff Stearns is in a tough primary race and his opponent alleges that he bribed him to get out of the race, going to the birth certificate is a deflection.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ray J. was supplying drugs, at first it was said he was at the hotel when Whitney was found and then that was retracted. Whatever the truth is, something very shady was going on.

And when we had the gay marriage ban on the ballot back in 2004, I looked at the election results county by county. St. Louis, St. Charles, and Jackson county (St. Louis and Kansas City) defeated it handily. the county where I live, which has a university, also defeated it, but just barely (like 53-47 percent). I looked at the counties WAY down in the middle of the ozarks, Shannon, Ripley, and Carter counties... those counties passed that gay marriage ban by like 93 PERCENT. And look at this, and you see what we're dealing with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuI2LEKHGiQ

That's the Bible Belt for you. My mother was raised in rural Missouri (Wright County) and she says it was just terrible, very racist there. Not much has changed, as it's still the most socially conservative region in the US.

Actually, as despicable as those Cleland attacks were, they were not illegal. On the other hand, switching a candidate at the last minute was a direct violation of the existing election law in place (and was something that I don't believe was ever done before, aside from instances where a candidate died or became medically incapacitated). So, ONE COULD CERTAINLY ARGUE (DaytimeFan) that what happened in NJ in 2002 was even worse than what happened in GA that same year.

Not being illegal doesn't make it less wrong. A draft dodger attacking the personal character of a veteran is wrong.

As for New Jersey, the court ruled the Democratic Party could field a replacement, so it was settled in law and there was no illegality.

I thought those anti-Max Cleland ads were some of the worst stuff I have ever seen. Yet, the Republicans weren't the only ones playing dirty tricks in 2002. That year, scandal-plagued NJ Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli was also seeking re-election. All throughout his term, allegations of unethical behavior had been plaguing him, but no Democrat even dared to challenge him in the primary. Because NJ is a heavily Democratic state, Republicans can only win statewide elections if they are running against highly unpopular incumbents; throughout most of the campaign, Torricelli was neck-and-neck with his unknown GOP opponent, businessman Douglas Forrester. (None of the polls would have even been close if Torricelli didn't have so many ethical problems.)

With less than a month to go before the election, WNBC-TV aired a very damaging series of stories implicating the NJ senator. After this bad press, Torricelli was 15 points down in the polls, and only then did he face immense pressure from state and national Democrats to drop out of the race. Torricelli agreed to do this, and was replaced by Frank Lautenberg (who had retired from the Senate just two years earlier), who won the general election easily. Unfortunately, Torricelli dropped out so late in the process that the law did not allow for new ballots to be printed with Lautenberg's name on them. (He would have had to have dropped out at least 30 days before the election. Legally and ethically, Lautenberg could have run as a write-in candidate, but the Democratic party knew that such a proposition was too risky given the lack of intelligence many voters possess.) So, the Democrats were able to stand before a very liberal state supreme court to get the law changed, and then proceeded to reimburse the state the $800,000 charge it cost to print the new ballots.

Again, for all but the last couple of weeks of the campaign, Democrats were pushing Torricelli as somebody who was completely fit to serve in the Senate. Only when public support dramatically turned against him did they demand Torricelli drop out, completely disregarding the election law that was in place at the time. And this was done all in the name of attempting to retain control of the Senate (the Democrats had a one-seat majority going into the election, but wound up with a net loss of two seats despite using underhanded tactics to keep NJ in the party's column).

I always found it interesting (back in 2002) that whenever liberals (rightly) bitched and moaned about the way Cleland was treated, they had no problems whatsoever with the Lautenberg/Torricelli switcheroo.

That's kind of how the cookie crumbles in politics. There are no free rides in election, so what if Democrats got another candidate, that is not equal to attacking a veteran's character.

The campaign against Cleland was over the line. Cleland was wounded in war and Chambliss got deferments to keep him out of it, which really added to the absurdity of the attacks on Cleland. The political atmosphere was more divisive after Bush left office than it was before he entered it.